• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2021-01150 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held that Petitioner had not shown claims 1–18 unpatentable under § 103 over Paxton, Sutton, and Ivershen because the combination did not teach or motivate transmission responsive to correlation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the Final Written Decision for “not clearly explaining its holding or rationale regarding motivation to combine and whether the proposed combination teaches the final limitation of claim 1: transmitting an indication of the first host responsive to the correlating.” Palo Alto Networks, 122 F.4th at 1384. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explained that the Final Written Decision “never made a clear finding on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Paxton by adding Sutton’s step of transmitting a notification of malicious activity after Paxton’s correlation step,” as proposed by Petitioner. Id. at 1385. The Federal Circuit stated that the Board “failed to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Paxton to provide the recited notification as taught by Sutton in response to the correlation disclosed in Paxton.” Id. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[b]y reading Paxton and Sutton in isolation, the Board erred,” and that we vacate and remand for the Board to clarify and explain its holding on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the identity of the first host (e.g., to an administrator) as taught by Sutton, responsive to the correlating disclosed by Paxton to improve network security.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the alleged invention of the ’903 patent “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2–3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Petitioner further notes that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is similar, with Patent Owner contending that the ordinary skilled artisan “would be someone with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or related field, and either (1) two or more years of industry experience and/or (2) an advanced degree in computer science or related field.” PO Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 27– 31). Similar to Petitioner, Patent Owner also states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “may have additional industry experience in lieu of a formal degree.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 10

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

    “After review of the current record, we conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for the purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “responsive to the correlation, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references in the manner advocated by Petitioner. Petitioner contends that this combination would only involve “[t]he application of known techniques (e.g., Sutton’s implementation of rules and data to define security policies, disallowed websites, etc.) to improve similar devices (e.g., servers, gateways, firewalls, etc. in Sutton’s and Paxton’s systems) to provide predictable results in the same way (e.g., to provide packet-filtering functions preventing communications with potentially malicious hosts).” Id. at 22–23.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,530,903 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,530,903
• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00069 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that the prior art teaches creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, as claims 1–18 and 21–23 require.

  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

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

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification describes only fingerprint creation outside the virtual machine monitor because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. See Sur-reply 1– 2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner does not contest that Capalik’s fingerprint generation occurs outside the components that Petitioner identifies as the claimed virtual machine monitor. Reply 1–3; see Pet. 18–23 (mapping Capalik’s hypervisor kernel 516 to the claimed virtual machine monitor); id. at 30–31 (mapping Capalik’s processing module 508 and signature generation engine 530 to the claimed fingerprint creation); see also Prelim. Resp. 21–23 (explaining Petitioner’s mapping). Instead, Petitioner asserts that the at-issue claim language—“at the virtual machine monitor”—does not require “that each of the subsequently recited steps must be performed by or in the [virtual machine monitor],” but instead only requires “that the fingerprint is generated by the same decoy system that contains the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2. Petitioner argues that the intrinsic record supports its position because “[n]owhere in the ’697 Patent is there any teaching or suggestion that a [virtual machine monitor] creates a fingerprint/signature indicative of attack activity,” and instead, “[t]he ’697 Patent teaches that its signature generation engine is separate from the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:12–19). In addition, Petitioner asserts that requiring fingerprint creation at the virtual machine monitor “directly” slip op. at 8

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “D. Statutory Disclaimer and Remaining Challenged Claims The Petition challenges claims 1–23. Pet. 10. However, because Patent Owner disclaimed claims 19 and 20 (Ex. 2010), the remaining challenged claims are 1–18 and 21–23. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (2020) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). Of the remaining challenged claims, only claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,106,697
• Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · PGR2024-00048 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–6 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024). Upon considering the evidence and arguments presented, we determine, as discussed below, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny1 Petitioner’s request to institute post-grant review of claims 1–6.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Khatri, proposes a definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Dr. Khatri, however, notes that his opinions would be the same under either his proposal or Petitioner’s proposal. Id. ¶¶ 25–26. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the Preliminary Response, it “adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 22–23; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–26). We determine that the current record supports Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “MLC memory modules” and “SLC memory module.” Pet. 23–28. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s constructions, but does not contest them because it argues that construction of these terms is not necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. Prelim. Resp. 14. Based on the record presented, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “more likely than not” standard for instituting a post- grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he written description requirement is met when the disclosure relied on for support ‘reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citation omitted)). The written description inquiry is a question of fact, is context specific, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1357–58). Factors used to evaluate the sufficiency of a disclosure include: 1) “the existing knowledge in the particular field”; 2) “the extent and content of the prior art”; 3) “the maturity of the science or technology”; and 4) “the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1359). As support for the term “memory space,” the ’612 patent explains that because “the SLC NAND flash is used to boost the lifetime (endurance) of the storage system, it can be considerably lesser in amount than the MLC NAND flash.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–23; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. As an example, the ’612 specification states that “a system may set SLC NAND flash equal to 12.5% or 25% of MLC NAND flash (total non-volatile memory storage space=MLC+SLC).” Ex. 1001, 5:23–25; see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 51, 62. In addition, we find persuasive Dr. Khatri’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “there are two spaces—MLC and SLC—where data is stored, and the total memory space is the combination of the two.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. Further, the ’612 patent’s Figure 1 depicts “memory space,” e.g., dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) 20, one or more disks 24, MLC NAND flash memory module 26, and SLC NAND flash memory module 28. Ex. 1001, 5:37–45, Fig. 1; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. The ’612 patent’s Figure 4 also depicts “memory space,” e.g., NAND flash memory bank 56 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60a and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62a” and NAND flash memory bank 58 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60b and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62b.” Ex. 1001, 7:8–14, Fig. 4; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. On the record before us, we find the above noted disclosures to be sufficient to support the disputed claim language. For these reasons, the ’612 patent’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,854,612
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01271 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented and the evidence of record, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–21 of the ’342 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’342 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “(3) Discussion We observe first that “[Halevy’s] first step in processing a web source is to locate the forms in the source and to extract the text corresponding to the fields in the form.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. According to Halevy, the “web source is subsequently classified into the ontology classes.” Id. ¶ 55. Then, the “forms on the page are classified into the classes in the ontology.” Id. ¶ 57 (emphasis added). Halevy explains that this classification is used to predict what kinds of objects are in the databases queried by the form. Id. For “Schema Matching,” Halevy discloses “a mapping between the fields in the form and the SO-properties of the SO-classes[.]” Id. ¶¶ 61–62. Missing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that fields are mapped “to one another using normalized variables stored in a normalized variable data database” as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends that a POSITA “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with web programming and search engine systems[; m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–36) (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this definition.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner present claim construction in the Petition or Preliminary Response. Pet. 9; see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s construction of “universal variable map” is too narrow, but does not appear to offer an alternative construction other than to state that a “universal variable map” includes “a database that links variables from different websites to each other.” See Reply 1-2 (emphasis omitted) (“PO’s arguments for why Halevy’s ‘form database’ is not a universal variable map are all premised on improperly narrowing the term’s scope by adding restrictions that are unsupported by the intrinsic record.”). In the Sur-Reply, Patent Owner reiterates that it has not proposed a construction for “universal variable map.” Sur-Reply 1 (“Patent Owner did not present any claim construction arguments regarding that term, nor does that term’s construction have any bearing on the arguments set forth in the POPR for denying the Petition.”). Based on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,262,342
• Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any of claims 1–26 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented and the evidence of record, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–26 of the ’378 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA or POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’378 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with web programming and search engine systems[; m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–36) (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this definition.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “(3) Discussion We observe first that “[Halevy’s] first step in processing a web source is to locate the forms in the source and to extract the text corresponding to the fields in the form.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. According to Halevy, the “web source is subsequently classified into the ontology classes.” Id. ¶ 55. Then, the “forms on the page are classified into the classes in the ontology.” Id. ¶ 57 (emphasis added). Halevy explains that this classification is used to predict what kinds of objects are in the databases queried by the form. Id. For “Schema Matching,” Halevy discloses “a mapping between the fields in the form and the SO-properties of the SO-classes[.]” Id. ¶¶ 61–62. Missing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a “plurality of computer-readable field identifiers” are mapped “to one another” as required by claim 1. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Fox, testifies that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are identified for each form and used to map the fields in the form (i.e., “the plurality of computer-readable field identifiers”) to one another using “SOproperties,” as shown . . . in annotated Figure 3.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–40, 45, 49, 62, 67). Yet, those cited portions of Halevy do not support Dr. Fox’s testimony. As Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Sam Malek, explains: the language highlighted by Petitioner in Figure 3 does not actually show that “[t]he ‘SO-classes’ are . . . used to map the fields in the form . . . to one another using ‘SO-properties,’” as he contends. Id. Rather, the language in Figure 3 that Dr. Fox has highlighted merely shows that, for any given form, there is “mapping between fields” of that form and “class properties.” EX1006, Fig. 3. In other words, fields in a form are mapped to class properties. Figure 3 does not show any mapping of fields to each other, as Dr. Fox argues.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,633,378
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00666 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required determination that access occurred during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 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

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00701 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the prior-art combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 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

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition. Q So is it your opinion that the – the limitation 1B requires that the system determines whether or not the accesses by the -- the two electronic devices occurred within a predetermined period of time? A Yes.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01281 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at critical time. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 3 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0113674 A1, published May 15, 2008 (Ex. 1003, “Baig”). 4 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0128547 A1, published July 1, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Laidlaw”). 5 U.S. Pat. No. 6,427,170 B1, issued July 30, 2002 (Ex. 1007, “Sitaraman”). 6 Harley Hahn, The Internet Complete Reference (2d ed. 1996) (Ex. 1008, “Hahn”). 7 U.S. Pat. No. 7,730,030 B1, issued June 1, 2010 (Ex. 1009, “Xu”). 8 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0282328 A1, published Dec. 14, 2006 (Ex. 1010, “Gerace”). 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7

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

    “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) (2023). Our rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 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 8

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

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R Tech LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01047 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny Petitioner’s request to institute inter partes review of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is similar to Petitioner’s definition with some variation in the amount of education and specificity as to the experience required. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. We note, however, that our determination in this proceeding would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner “applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” and does not propose construction of any claim term. Pet. 4. Patent Owner also does not propose construction of any claim term. See generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we see no need for express construction of any term for the purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “feature of scanning a wireless communication network by the mobile device receiving the streaming data for re-routing, to identify devices connected to the wireless network, are identified as capable to handle the routed media content.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002, 237–238). Thus, we understand the recited language to require scanning to find devices that have been identified as compatible, not just scanning to find devices and later determining which of those devices, if any, are compatible. Zhang, on the other hand, scans to find devices in the network, but that scan does not seek out devices identified as compatible. Specifically, Zhang scans to find its “helper environment” which is composed of “devices around them.” Ex. 1004, code (57); see also id. 2:16–20. The first step of Zhang’s process is to find “a local device [that] offers helper service.” Id. at 3:62–63. In the next step, Zhang then interrogates the device it scanned for in order to find out whether that device offers the necessary service. Id. at 3:63–4:5. In other words, Zhang is not scanning for compatible devices, but rather it is scanning for any device around it and then asking whether the device provides the necessary service. We find this to be insufficient because the claim is not merely seeking to identify a compatible device, but rather it is scanning “to identify a plurality of devices, identified as compatible to handle said media content.” Thus, for these claims it is not enough that the network be scanned for devices; instead, the network must be scanned for devices “identified as compatible.” The inclusion of Rofheart does not address this issue. Rofheart is relied upon to teach “that a local device identifies and connects with a plurality of remote devices.” Pet. 29. According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Rofheart’s teaching to improve Zhang by adding “the benefit of providing users control to select one or more of a plurality of devices, rather than always connecting to the first identified available compatible device, as taught by Zhang.” Id. As such, neither of the cited references addresses the recited scanning for devices identified as compatible.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,699,223
• Apple Inc. v. S.M.R. Innovations Ltd And Y.M.R. Tech LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01050 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 9, and 24 would have been obvious over the asserted references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Considering the above principles, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims would have been obvious over Chihara, BluetoothSpec, Everett, and Chang, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent owner contends that a person of ordinary skill “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and at least two years’ experience in wireless communication and mobile devices including multimedia streaming, or equivalent education, research, experience, and knowledge.” Prelim. Resp. 2–3. In other words, Patent Owner argues that the person of ordinary skill would have had less education and more specific experience with mobile devices, including multimedia streaming, than Petitioner proposes. Because Petitioner’s argument is supported by declaratory testimony, and Patent Owner does not provide supporting evidence for its argument, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1003, ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:16–20, 4:18–55, 11:61–12:11).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although Petitioner doesn’t promote it in its Petition, we agree with Petitioner’s undisputed contention that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “announcer device” limitation is that the “mobile communication device is receiving rerouted data from surrounding equipment, rather than rerouting data to surrounding equipment.” Pet. 19. This is in accord with the specification of the ’990 patent which states that “[t]he announcer device 30 is responsible for announcing to the environment the availability of a current device for accepting routed media.” Ex. 1001, 7:15–17 (emphasis added). The construction that Petitioner does promote, based on its interpretation of Patent Owner’s arguments in the parallel litigation, departs from the term’s ordinary meaning, yet Petitioner has presented no evidence to justify such a 7 Petitioner also argues that we should construe the term media transformer as a means-plus-function limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pet. 7–11. We need not construe this term to reach our decision not to institute trial in this proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). departure. For example, Petitioner has not shown that the patent applicant has plainly acted as lexicographer for the term, or has plainly disavowed the full scope of the term. See Thorner v. Sony, 669 F.3d at 1365; Multiform Desiccants v. Medzam, 133 F.3d at 1477. We are aware of no evidentiary basis for Petitioner’s proposed construction in the specification or prosecution history of the ’990 patent. To the extent, if any, that Patent Owner may have argued in the parallel district court proceeding for a departure from the term’s ordinary meaning, we find no clear disavowal of the term’s scope, particularly in light of Patent Owner’s ultimate argument that the term should have its “[p]lain meaning.” Ex. 2008, 2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In light of our disagreement with Petitioner’s proposed claim- construction, we do not find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that Chihara teaches the “announcer limitation,” either alone or in light of BluetoothSpec. Although Petitioner shows that Chihara’s phone 11B announces its availability for pairing with nearby Bluetooth-compatible devices, Petitioner does not argue that phone 11B indicates availability to receive any rerouted data from either headset 13 or watch 12B. To the extent that phone 11B receives data for rerouting, it appears to receive it from a mobile or fixed communication network, not from any surrounding Bluetooth devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 79 (phone 11B receives video and audio data via “a fixed telephone network or another mobile telephone set accommodated in a mobile communication network,” and transmits that streaming data to watch 12B and headset 13), 53–54 (calls arrive via mobile telephone antenna 26, which are then processed and transmitted via Bluetooth antenna 21 to watch 12). Regarding the bidirectional communication between phone 11B and headset 13 or watch 12B, Petitioner has not pointed to any evidence that the data sent from watch 12B or headset 13 to phone 11B includes rerouted data. Similarly, Petitioner’s contention that Chihara’s phone 11B, in light of BluetoothSpec, indicates its availability (e.g., that the phone is “powered on” and transmits signals to discover nearby devices) fails to meet the plain language of claim 1, which requires the streaming device (phone 11B) to indicate its availability to receive rerouted data from the surrounding devices (headset 13 or watch 12B). Thus, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that Chihara, in view of BluetoothSpec and the other references, teaches the “announcer device” limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that it would be likely to prevail if we instituted an inter partes review.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,969,990

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.