- TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00245 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe; claims 2 and 3 are also unpatentable as obvious over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above. slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00990 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable under §103: claims 2–3 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet, and claims 2–4 over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s option (a) is substantially the same as Petitioners’ proposal—both require a bachelor’s degree in the same or a related subject and two additional years of related work experience. Patent Owner’s option (b) adds an additional option based on work experience in lieu of a formal degree. Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The terms storage module and storage capacitance, as used herein, are distinguishable from the terms holding module and holding capacitance, respectively. Holding modules and holding capacitances, as used above, identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of “holding” a voltage value. Storage modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal. Ex. 2029, 66:59–67 (emphases added); see Ex. 2016, 39–40 (discussing Patent Owner’s prior arguments to construe “storage module” in IPR2014- 00948). When defining certain terms in a section titled “General Terminology,” the ’551 patent repeatedly uses the phrase “when used herein” in combination with the phrase “refer(s) to.” See, e.g., Ex. 2029, 13:56–15:27 (mentioning a term followed by “when used herein,” followed by “refers to,” followed by a definition). For example, the ’551 patent states, “[t]he term digital signal, when used herein, refers to a signal that changes between discrete states, as contrasted to a signal that is continuous.” Id. at 15:7–9. As shown, the ’551 patent defines “digital signal” by stating “when used herein” followed by “refers to.” And, the same sentence also provides a comparison between “digital signal” and a signal that is continuous. Even though the passage describing “storage module” is not listed under the “General Terminology” section of the ’551 patent, the passage provides the same indications that the patentees clearly and unambiguously intended to define the term “storage module” by stating “as used herein” and “refer to”—hallmarks that the patentees were providing a lexicographic definition of the term. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An applicant’s use of the phrase ‘refers to’ generally indicates an intention to define a term.”) (citing In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 731 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Additionally, as with the term “digital signal,” the above-passage provides a comparison between “storage module” and “holding module” and uses the definitions of the terms to compare and contrast them. “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Additional Terms Petitioners propose that we construe the following three terms: “frequency down-conversion module,” “subtractor module,” and “under-samples.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner responds to Petitioners’ constructions for “frequency down-conversion module” and “subtractor module.” PO Resp. 39–41. On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2022-00246 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 12–15, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the prior-art combinations; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’835 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“preamble of claim 1, is not limiting. In particular, “cable modem” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claim 1, it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention, and “cable modem” is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner fails to raise any arguments on these issues to the contrary. Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “cable modem” is not limiting.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“the construction of “frequency translation module,” but that is inapposite because none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of this term. Accordingly, we need not construe it expressly to resolve the present dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“differently than the Federal Circuit in ParkerVision. Accordingly, because this specific issue of what amounts to “non-negligible amounts of energy” was already decided by the Federal Circuit, we construe this term to mean “energy in amounts that are distinguishable from noise.”30” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 7,292,835 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,292,835 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00985 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 12–15, and 17–20 unpatentable as obvious, including over Hulkko and Gibson and over Gibson and Schiltz.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“preamble of claim 1, is not limiting. In particular, “cable modem” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claim 1, it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention, and “cable modem” is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner fails to raise any arguments on these issues to the contrary. Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “cable modem” is not limiting.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the construction of “frequency translation module,” but that is inapposite because none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of this term. Accordingly, we need not construe it expressly to resolve the present dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“differently than the Federal Circuit in ParkerVision. Accordingly, because this specific issue of what amounts to “non-negligible amounts of energy” was already decided by the Federal Circuit, we construe this term to mean “energy in amounts that are distinguishable from noise.”30” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“argument regarding the second alternative persuasive. In particular, the distinction Patent Owner seeks to draw between Hulkko and Gibson generally, does not undermine Petitioners’ argument and evidence that the particular structures proposed for combination are substantially similar, operate in a similar manner, and would have been expected, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to function predictably and with a reasonable expectation of success, once combined. Notably, we find particularly persuasive Hulkko’s teaching to use its switched capacitors as a mixer to perform down-conversion, which is the same function as Gibson’s mixers. See Ex. 1004, 5:39–49 (“switched capacitor switching elements . . . are used to implement the mixer 11 which directly demodulates the IF-signal into a base-frequency signal”). Accordingly, we find that the combination of Hulkko and Gibson teaches element [1B] and that one of ordinary skill in the” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 7,292,835 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,292,835 - PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 27, 2022 · IPR2022-00049 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 20 and 22 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations rendered them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“IV. CONCLUSION The Petitioner has not persuasively established that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited references so as to render any of the challenged claims unpatentable. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition would have been obvious. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), no inter partes review as to any claim of the ’638 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Pet. 25–27 (emphasis added) (alterations in original). Although this passage is somewhat lengthy, the only reasons provided for combining the relevant teachings of Garcia and Byrne are “to avoid wasting communications resources and adding delays,” “avoid wasting resources and adding delays,” and “reducing wasteful network transmission and delays.” See id. However, the only argument as to the existence of the alleged motivating waste and delay is: “Garcia sends images by ‘a mobile telephone communications network, for example a GSM/GPRS network. . . A POSITA would have known that such networks are bandwidth and resourceconstrained, and that communications over such networks take[ ] time.” Id. at 25 (quoting Ex. 1103, 11:21–12:1). In the Petition, there is no explanation or reasoning to support concluding, based on Garcia’s statement that images are sent using a mobile telephone communications network, that a skilled artisan would recognize waste and delay even if such networks are bandwidth and resource-constrained and that communications over such networks take time. See id. And, there is no explanation or reasoning for concluding that a skilled artisan would recognize that to “check for errors before the submitting” in the manner taught by Byrne would help alleviate waste and delay in Garcia’s system. The only articulated rationale to combine in the Petition is a simple, unelaborated assertion that a skilled artisan would have known that “networks are bandwidth and resource-constrained” and “communications over such networks take time.” This assertion is too general10 and conclusory to accorded much weight and is inadequate to support the finding of rationale to combine. There is no elaboration in the Petition as to what is meant by this sentence. The Petition fails to explain what pertinent knowledge a skilled artisan would have had and how exactly this would have motivated the combination of the relevant teachings of Garcia and Byrne.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Under the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312– 19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is a “heavy presumption,” however, that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). We determine we need not explicitly construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See 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’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Preliminary Response and Exhibit 2006); Paper 13 (relating to the Reply); and Paper 17 (relating to the Sur-reply). In each of these motions, the parties seek to protect as confidential certain information that relates to the issue of whether Petitioner has properly identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). As we deny the Petition on the merits and do not grant the request to institute an inter partes review, the issue of identification of the real parties in interest to this proceeding is moot. Therefore, we do not reach the arguments and evidence of the parties relating to whether Petitioner identified all the real parties in interest in the Petition, and we make no reference in this Decision to the documents and information that the parties seek to protect as confidential.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,402,638 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01265 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 3 is unpatentable under §103 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet; the Board did not reach the Tayloe and Kawada ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“proposes that it be construed to mean “an element that stores a nonnegligible amount of energy from an input electromagnetic (EM) signal.” Pet. Reply 10. Petitioner contends that its proposed construction expressly tracks the definition provided in the ’551 patent for “storage element,” which the parties agree is synonymous with “storage module.” Id.; see id. at 10 n.2. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the ’551 patent states: “Storage modules . . . refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:65–67). Petitioner notes that the ’551 patent also states that “the ‘goal of the storage modules’ is ‘to store non-negligible amounts of energy transferred from the EM signal’” and that the patent “specifically distinguishes storage elements from holding elements on this basis.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:59–67 (“Holding modules . . . identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of ‘holding’ a voltage value. Storage modules . . . on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.”)). Thus, Petitioner contends “‘storage element’ should be construed accordingly.” Id. at 11 (citation omitted).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Owner fails to “establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220. In particular, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Steer makes any attempt to establish nexus with the elements recited in claim 3 based on a presumption of co-extensiveness or otherwise. Each instance in which Dr. Steer mentions claim 3, he only ties the discussion to energy transfer systems or energy sampling in general, which is based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction that we do not adopt. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 229 (“energy transfer (energy sampling) system – of claim 3”), 230 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 233 (“[u]sing energy sampling . . . as set forth in claim 3”), 234 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 235 (same), 236 (same), 237 (“using the energy transfer (energy sampling) system of claim 3”), 238 (same), 239 (“energy sampling system as set forth in claim 3”). Thus, we find that Patent Owner fails to establish that a presumption of nexus is warranted and similarly fails to establish nexus absent the presumption. Accordingly, for the reasons above, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden to establish nexus. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (patent owner “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists”).” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - Clearone, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00683 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–33, and 35–40 are unpatentable; claims 6 and 34 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted for substitute claims 57–67.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“establish that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Motion is dismissed as moot, and Patent Owner’s Motion is denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art To establish the level of ordinary skill in the art, we look to various” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For the foregoing reasons, we determine the term “rotationally offset” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“date it becomes publicly accessible. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication under § 102 is a legal conclusion based on underlying fact findings.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “A reference is considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,565,493 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,565,493 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki KaishaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2017 · IPR2016-01359 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of the institution denials in IPR2016-01357 through IPR2016-01361, finding no abuse of discretion or overlooked issue; it granted the request for an expanded panel.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. Requests for Rehearing A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDecided for patent owner
“Our intent in formulating the factors was to take undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner into account. Thus, factor 3 is directed to Petitioner’s potential benefit from receiving and having the opportunity to study Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as our institution decisions on the first-filed petitions, prior to its filing of follow-on petitions. As discussed in our Decisions Denying Institution, we are concerned here by the shifts in the prior art asserted and the related arguments in follow-on petitions. See Dec. 11. Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse. The absence of any restrictions on follow-on petitions would allow petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.14 All other factors aside, this is unfair to patent 14 The Board has addressed efficiency and potential prejudice induced by multiple petitions in multiple cases. See LG Electronics, slip op. at 12 (“The Board’s resources would be more fairly expended on first petitions rather than on a followon petition like the Petition in this case.”); Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Case IPR2014-00581, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8) (“[T]he four obviousness grounds are ‘second bites at the apple,’ which use our prior decision as a roadmap to remedy Butamax’s prior, deficient challenge. owners and is an inefficient use of the inter partes review process and other post-grant review processes. Considering other factors (i.e., factors 2, 4, and 5) allows us to assess and weigh whether a petitioner should have or could have raised the new challenges earlier.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDecided for patent owner
“ii. Applying the Factors in These Cases As summarized above, supra Section II.B.2, we find that, in these cases, six of the seven factors weigh against institution. Petitioner disputes our findings on the issue of whether Petitioner “should have known” of the art asserted in the follow-on petitions under factor 2. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization that invariably factor 2 could not be met because “patents or printed publications” necessarily “must be locatable by a reasonably diligent search.” Req. Reh’g 8. The relevant issue under factor 2 is not, as Petitioner has framed it, whether the prior art references relied on in the follow-on petitions constitute printed publications, but whether they could have been found with reasonable diligence. Thus, even for printed publications, a petitioner is free to explain why a reasonably diligent search could not have uncovered the newly applied prior art. See Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC, IPR2015-00873, slip op. at 6 (Sept. 16, 2015) (Paper 8) (describing “[w]hat a petitioner ‘could have raised,’” as including “prior art which a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover.”). Here, the record is devoid of any explanation why Petitioner could not have found the newly asserted prior art in any earlier search(es) through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“panels to authorize, an expanded panel. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 6; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.1–42.412; see also AOL Inc. v. Coho Licensing LLC, Case IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015) (Paper 12) (“[P]arties are not permitted to request, and panels do not authorize, panel expansion.”). Our standard operating procedures, however, provide the Chief Judge with discretion to expand a panel to include more than three judges. PTAB SOP 1, 1–3 (§§ II, III) (Rev. 14); see id. at 1 (introductory language explaining that the Director has delegated to the Chief Judge the authority to designate panels under 35 U.S.C. § 6); see also In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (providing that Congress “expressly granted the Commissioner the authority to designate expanded Board panels made up of more than three Board members.”). The Chief Judge may consider panel expansions upon a “suggestion” from a judge, panel, or party in a post-grant review. Id. at 3–4; see also Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Case IPR2014-00319, slip op. at 2 n.1 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2014) (Paper 20) (expanded panel) (per curiam). The standard operating procedure exemplifies some of the reasons for which” slip op. at 4
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,909,094 - Google Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 21, 2016 · CBM2015-00040 · APJ Michael R Zecher · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, and 11 are unpatentable as anticipated by Stefik and obvious over Stefik with ordinary skill; the motion to amend is granted for substitute claim 37.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“claims of the ’280 patent at issue in this proceeding based on the same grounds of unpatentability. The Petition in Case CBM2015-00160 was accompanied by a Motion for Joinder that requests we join Apple as a party to this proceeding. Pursuant to § 324 and § 18(a) of the AIA, we instituted another covered business method patent review proceeding as to claims 1, 5, and 11 of the ’280 patent, and then granted Apple’s Motion for Joinder. Paper 14.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Instead, the relevant inquiry here is whether Petitioners have set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. When describing examples of what may constitute a sufficient rationale to combine, the Court held that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and 50 there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Upon considering the record in its entirety, we are satisfied that Petitioners’ rationale for modifying Stefik by allowing a NSOR to be exercised at a different time from a usage right suffices as an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings that justifies the legal conclusion of obviousness. We first address whether a design need or market pressure existed to solve a particular problem, and then we turn to whether there were a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. As to the first inquiry, both the Background of the Invention of the ’280 patent and Stefik serve as evidence that there was a need to address particular problems associated with exercising and enforcing the rights of content owners during the distribution and use of their digital works in a multi-level distribution scheme. Ex. 1001, 1:29–61; Ex. 1002, 1:23–2:48.” slip op. at 50
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“’280 patent provides an explicit definition for the claim term “meta-right.” Dec. on Inst. 16. In particular, the specification discloses that “[m]eta-rights are the rights that one has to generate, manipulate, modify, dispose of or otherwise derive other rights.” Ex. 1001, 5:47–49. By using the verb “are” following “meta-rights,” the specification sets forth an explicit definition for this claim term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Notably, nothing in the specification contradicts this definition of the claim term “meta-right” or suggests another definition for this claim term. We, therefore, do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that this cited disclosure in the specification is only one of many fundamental characteristics pertaining to a meta-right. PO Resp. 23. Although we agree with Patent Owner that it is proper to consult the entire specification of the ’280 patent to interpret what the patentee meant by the claim term “meta-right” (PO Resp. 19–22), we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the specification further defines the claim term “meta-right” to import a negative limitation into the claims—namely, “a right that . . . is not itself a usage right because exercising a meta-right does not result in action to content” (id. at 23–25). For convenience, the relevant portion of the specification relied upon by Patent Owner is reproduced below:” slip op. at 27
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“1. Principles of Law To establish anticipation, “all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.” Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “[A] reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles stated above in mind.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,774,280 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,774,280
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.