- Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00515 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–5 and 7–27, exercising § 314(a) discretion because most General Plastic factors favored denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“Petitioner filed two staggered petitions challenging twenty-three common claims, including all of the independent claims of the ’555 patent. included in the earlier petition, and Petitioner’s treatment of these claims comprises less than three pages of analysis. Given that the two petitions challenge nearly all of the same claims of the ’555 patent, we find that this factor weighs in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“35 U.S.C. § 314(a) provides that the Director 4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the ’555 patent asserts the benefit of applications filed before that date, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute. Ex. 1001, codes (60), (63). the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. Section 314(a) does not require the Director to institute a review. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). Rather, a decision whether to institute is within the Director’s discretion, and that discretion has been delegated to the Board. See General Plastic at 15, 18–19; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,469,555 - Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00514 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding that most General Plastic factors favored denying this follow-on petition challenging claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–30.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“Petitioner filed two staggered petitions challenging twenty-five common claims, including all of the independent claims of the ’554 patent. Only three of the twenty-eight claims challenged in the instant Petition are not included in the earlier petition, and Petitioner’s treatment of these three claims comprises less than one page of analysis. Pet. 39–40, 49, 53. Given that the two petitions challenge nearly all of the same claims of the ’554 patent, we find that this factor weighs in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,469,554 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00425 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and informed by the pre-institution record, shows “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 explained below, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In evaluating arguments under Section 325(d), we use a two-part framework, determining, first, “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). If either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, we then determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Id. Petitioner’s challenge over the combination of Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy counsels us not to discretionarily deny institution. Patent Owner does not dispute that Beck and Heller were not before the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 42–43; Prelim. Sur-reply 3. Although Patent Owner characterizes that as “irrelevant” (Prelim. Sur-reply 3), Petitioner asserts it relies on Beck to teach the limitation leading to allowance (Prelim. Reply 3). In fact, the Petition largely relies on Beck, or the combination of Beck and Heller, in its obviousness challenge and only relies on Lovejoy for a sliver of 11 Chapter 31 (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) relates to inter partes review. first part of Advanced Bionics is not satisfied and do not exercise our discretion to deny institution for this reason. Even if we were to reach the second part of Advanced Bionics, we agree with Petitioner the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims by not applying the combination of Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy during prosecution, as evidenced by Petitioner’s reliance on that combination in its unpatentability challenges. Prelim. Reply 3; see Pet. 69–70. Petitioner specifically points out the Office erred by overlooking Beck’s “disclosure of the limitation that allegedly was missing from the prior art and led to allowance,” i.e., “wherein the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID . . . and communicates to said wireless device . . . software related to the unique sensor ID.” Prelim. Reply 3. Patent Owner, at most, suggests Petitioner fails to demonstrate the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims because Petitioner’s combination does not show unpatentability. See Prelim. Resp. 43. However, as detailed in our analysis above, Petitioner adequately shows that the claims would have been obvious over the combination of Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d) over Petitioner’s challenge based on Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy. We need not address whether Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s challenge based on Bandy warrants discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–42.” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine the plain language and structure of the limitation does not support a construction requiring authentication using both the unique sensor ID and the unique wireless ID, as asserted by Patent Owner. The claim recites “the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID,” but Patent Owner’s construction appears to read out the phrase “associated with” and adds an unrecited requirement to the claim such that the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID and said unique wireless device ID. Ex. 1001, 19:51–52 (emphasis added). The language and structure of the limitation reads that the unique wireless ID is “associated with” the unique sensor ID. As such, the last portion of the limitation reciting “associated with said unique wireless device ID” serves to further describe the unique sensor ID, specifically, that the unique sensor ID is associated with the unique wireless device ID. 8 In Petitioner’s Reply and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply, the parties dispute the construction of this phrase. See Prelim. Reply 2; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–3. Those arguments go beyond the scope of the briefing we authorized on discretionary denial and inventorship (see Ex. 3001), so we do not consider them here. using both the unique sensor ID and a unique wireless device ID. The Specification does not use, let alone define, the terms “server” or “authentication.” See generally Ex. 1001. To the extent the Specification provides examples of access to a remote computer, those examples describe access on the basis of a sensor ID—but not a wireless device ID. In one example, a wireless device obtains software for a RFID sensor tag from “a centralized database for RFID tags or a diagnostics database that is accessed only by paying an access fee. Subsequently, the ID of the RFID sensor is matched to a given class of sensor (e.g. a glucose sensor) and the software and/or instructions for the analyses are downloaded” to the wireless device. Ex. 1001, 18:16–23 (emphasis added). Another example similarly provides access solely on the basis of a sensor ID: “a patient can . . . upload into the cell phone the necessary information to conduct any given test by matching the ID of the RFID sensor with given software and data tables stored remotely on computer 400.” Id. at 16:50–56 (emphasis added). Accordingly, for institution purposes, we construe “wherein the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID” such that the remote server’s authentication requires use of a unique sensor ID; but the remote server’s authentication does not require use of the unique wireless device ID.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we agree with Petitioner that the identified limitations—which each recite a “means” or “means for” performing a particular function—are means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). We are also preliminarily persuaded that Petitioner correctly identifies the recited functions and corresponding structure for these limitations. See Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:20–21, 2:24–28, 3:33–36, 17:18–30); see Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:4–6, 9:19–20, 9:57–65, 10:10–11) (explaining that Lovejoy is incorporated by reference into the ’307 Patent). For purposes of this Decision, we apply the constructions identified by Petitioner. These are shown in the table below:” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,969,307 - Alertus Technologies, LLC v. Desktop Alert, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00363 · APJ Andrew L Nalven · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Although claims 1 and 10 recite slightly different language, both clearly recite a “first triggering step” that precedes two subsequent polling steps. In the case of claim 1, the “first triggering step” precedes the “second step” and “fifth step.” See id. The explicit use of “second” and “fifth” supports limiting the steps to the recited order. See Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” (cleaned up)).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) “would have (i) a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in electrical engineering, computer engineering, network engineering, computer science, and/or a related field and (ii) 1-3 years of experience relating to computer and networking systems and/or methods including systems and methods for messaging.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–26). Patent Owner does not offer a position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment, which appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and asserted prior art.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“with Patent Owner that Dillon discloses time-stamps as “alternatives.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:36–41). Dillon explains that “[t]he time-stamp . . . may represent the status of the subscriber’s e-mail account in various ways . . . [m]ost commonly, it is an indication of an actual time.” Ex. 1005, 7:19–21. However, Dillon explicitly states that “[a]lternatively, a time-stamp may be a number, such as a version number . . . or it may be a binary indication of whether or not e-mail . . . has been received.” Id. at 7:23–28 (emphasis added). Petitioner has not identified any portion of Dillon that suggests using more than one type of time-stamp in the same process. See generally Pet. 30–36. Dillon’s lack of disclosure of using multiple time-stamps appears consistent with Dillon’s description of the time-stamp as providing “the status of the subscriber’s e-mail account.” Ex. 1005, 7:19–21. Each disclosed alternative — time, version number, or binary indication — provides status information for the same purpose, namely, to indicate “whether or not e-mail for the given e-mail alert service subscriber has been received by the e-mail server 12 at any given time.” Id. at 7:27–29, 9:7–17. Because each of Dillon’s alternatives for a time-stamp serves the same purpose, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has provided sufficient reasoning to demonstrate that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Dillon to both add a new polling step requesting a first time-stamp as a Boolean time-stamp and then request a second time-stamp as a version number or time indication. Indeed, Petitioner’s asserted rationale to modify Dillon here is conclusory and fails to explain sufficiently how using a second time-stamp will achieve the asserted benefits of reducing messaging bandwidth or uniquely identifying a particular message. See Pet. 31. Because Dr. Mangione-Smith’s declaration testimony mirrors Petitioner’s argument, his supporting testimony is similarly insufficient. Compare Pet. 31, with Ex. 1003 ¶ 62. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “the Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations”).” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,172,765 - Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00398 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika because Dill was not shown to disclose the claimed Integration Tier Limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed formulation of ordinary skill in the art as set forth above, because we are satisfied this formulation generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’196 patent and the asserted prior art. We do not adopt Patent Owner’s annotation to Petitioner’s formulation as requiring knowledge of “mobile wallets” specifically, because we determine knowledge of “mobile payment systems and techniques” per Petitioner’s formulation is tied sufficiently to the claims of the ’196 patent to reflect the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. At the same time, even if we were to include knowledge of “mobile wallets” in our formulation, it would not materially change our Decision as set forth below. That is, we would still determine Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dill discloses the Integration Tier Limitation.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyNot reached
“We need not resolve the parties’ dispute as to whether Dr. Houh qualifies as an ordinarily skilled artisan. Even assuming that Dr. Houh possesses, at a minimum, ordinary skill in the art—as we have done in this Decision—we determine Petitioner still fails to show that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The Integration Tier Limitation requires no further construction for purposes of this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 7 (“[N]o specific construction is required.”). The claim clearly specifies that the claimed “web services communication mechanisms” must serve as an interface between the integration tier and (1) the claimed mobile wallet application and, separately, (2) “a plurality of different device types over a plurality of different communication channels.” For purposes of this Decision, we assume that this interface may be direct or indirect. See id. at 6 (asserting that “communication channels that interface, even indirectly, with the ‘web services communication mechanisms’ still interface with the ‘web services communication mechanisms’”).” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, we find that of those four channels (1)–(4), only the first channel (1) is associated with web interface 137 such that it qualifies as a “communication channel,” as required by claim 1. There is no indication in the Dill disclosures cited by Petitioner that any of the other three channels (2)–(4) are associated with web interface 137. For example, Figure 9 of Dill includes a double-headed arrow to illustrate communication between web interface 137 and transfer options module 145, but Figure 9 does not include any arrows to illustrate communication between web interface 137 and any one or more of IVR interface 136, other interfaces 138, agent system 135, or mobile network 115. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 9. In other words, Petitioner fails to show Dill teaches web interface 137 interfaces with any devices over any of channels (2)–(4), as would be required by Petitioner’s mapping. In the Petition, Petitioner never clearly (or persuasively) addresses this requirement of the claim. Petitioner does contend that transfer options module 145 is coupled to various devices via interfaces 136–138 and exchanges transaction information (see Pet. 25–26; see also Pet. Reply 10– 11), but that contention misses the mark. The salient question is whether Dill’s web interface 137 (i.e., the claimed “web services communication mechanisms”) interfaces with the different device types over the channels, not whether transfer options module 145 (i.e., the claimed “integration tier”) does so.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,438,196 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,438,196 - Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00399 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika because Dill did not teach or render obvious the hardware SIM card and integration tier limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in software development with a basic knowledge of accounting” and “working knowledge of mobile payment systems and techniques,” as Petitioner proposes. Inst. Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 3–4). We stated that “this definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’488 patent and the asserted prior art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22; Ex. 2001 ¶ 35).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“In addition, Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Houh’s testimony (see Pet. 23–24) is unavailing. Although Dr. Houh agrees with the arguments in the Petition and includes quotes from the cited portions of Dill and Bykov (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–97), he provides no additional analysis or explanation beyond what was provided in the Petition. As a result, his testimony suffers the same deficiencies as the Petition. Also, we do not credit his conclusion that Dill includes the requisite disclosure (see id. ¶ 97) because he fails to provide sufficient supporting explanation or evidence (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). Finally, we note that Petitioner misrepresents Dr. Shamos’s testimony by stating that Dr. Shamos “agrees that if a mobile device executes a mobile wallet over a cellular network, the mobile device has a SIM card for the mobile wallet.” Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10). In the cited testimony, Dr. Shamos agrees that mobile devices have SIM cards, but he does not address where a mobile wallet application would be installed. Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, we determine that Dr. Shamos’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“for the term “hardware SIM card” because the important points are undisputed. In particular, the parties agree that a “hardware SIM card” is a SIM card implemented in hardware rather than software. See Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶ 36); Tr. 40:25–41:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel explaining that the language in its proposed construction was “to differentiate it from a software SIM card”); see also PO Resp. 16, 19 (asserting that the term refers to a specific type of hardware, namely a “chip” or a “smart card”) (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 32–33). The parties also agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “SIM card” is a component in a mobile device involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See Tr. 30:23–31:3 (Petitioner’s counsel stating “a SIM card, just as known in the art . . . would allow the user to be able to access the mobile network” 10 Each page in Exhibit 2021 includes at least two page numbers. For clarity, we refer to the page number of the exhibit (shown in the bottom right corner), and we have adjusted Patent Owner’s citation accordingly. given “the user’s identification information on it”), 39:24–40:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that “I think everyone is in agreement that the critical aspect of what makes a SIM card a SIM card is that it can authenticate a mobile device to a wireless network”). The evidence supports the parties’ understanding. The word “SIM” is an acronym for “subscriber identity module” (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:58–67; Ex. 2021, 5), and the record shows that a SIM is a specific component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network (see Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 30–31; see also e.g., Ex. 2021, 7 (stating that a SIM’s “primary function” is “to authenticate the subscriber to the network”); Ex. 2025, 3 (describing the SIM)).11 Consequently, we determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood a “hardware SIM card” to be a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. We do not need to further construe the term, or determine whether the additional requirements proposed by Patent Owner are appropriate, because Petitioner fails to show that the prior art teaches or suggests the claimed “hardware SIM card,” as explained below. See infra § II.D.2.a (analyzing the parties’ substantive contentions).” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dill discloses “a mobile wallet application installed on a hardware SIM card,” as required by element 1.3B. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, even assuming that Dill teaches installing a mobile wallet application somewhere on a mobile device (see Pet. 23),14 Dill does not teach installing it on a hardware SIM card,15 as specifically required by the claim. Petitioner relies upon paragraph 106 of Dill (see Pet. 23), but that paragraph does not disclose this claim limitation (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 106). In relevant part, that paragraph of Dill simply states: 14 Patent Owner disagrees with this premise, arguing that Dill does not disclose a mobile device that includes a mobile wallet application. See PO Resp. 52–56. We need not resolve that dispute because, even assuming Petitioner’s premise (as we have done in this Decision), Petitioner still fails to show that the claims are unpatentable. 15 As noted above, a “hardware SIM card” is a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See supra § II.C.1 (addressing meaning of term). It should also be appreciated that the methods described above may be performed by hardware components or may be embodied in sequences of machine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause a machine such as a general-purpose or special-purpose processor or logic circuits programmed with the instructions to perform the methods. These machine-executable instructions may be stored on one or more machine readable mediums, such as CD-ROMs or other type of optical disks, floppy diskettes, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other types of machine-readable mediums suitable for storing electronic instructions. Alternatively, the methods may be performed by a combination of hardware and software. Ex. 1005 ¶ 106 (emphases added). This teaches storing instructions on “other types of machine-readable mediums,” but it fails to teach storing instructions on a hardware SIM card, much less storing Dill’s mobile wallet application there. In short, Dill is silent with respect to this issue, and silence is not disclosure. Notably, Petitioner does not contend (or show) that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device would necessarily be installed on a hardware SIM card. See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–97. Indeed, the record indicates that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device could instead be installed on a different component. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:1–3, 9:33–35 (identifying device memory as alternate component); Ex. 2021, 5 (describing SIM as the “smaller of two computer chips inside a GSM mobile handset”); cf. Pet. Reply 9 (distinguishing between hardware SIM cards and software ones). Thus, Petitioner fails to show that this claim limitation is inherent in Dill. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that inherency requires a showing that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,208,488 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,208,488 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00146 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–20, and 22–27 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Our inquiry begins and ends with the first test pertaining to the field of the endeavor. Patent Owner is correct that the ’555 patent is in the field of video streaming over the internet with shifting of streaming content based on network conditions. See Ex. 1001, 1:31–34. Similarly, Ogdon discloses shifting presentation content that is transmitted over the internet based on network conditions. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 1:9–15. The only potential discrepancy appears to be whether Ogdon’s disclosed presentation content can include streaming video. And Ogdon discloses an example where a presentation version may include “real time or animated video.” Id. at 2:61– 66; see also infra § II.D.3.a (discussing Ogdon’s disclosure of video presentations). We find that Ogdon’s disclosure of transmitting real-time video as part of a presentation is the same as video streaming. Thus, we conclude that Ogdon is analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’555 patent. slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ogdon and Allen to yield this limitation. Ogdon teaches different quality versions of a presentation that may include video (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:8–10, 2:30–66, 13:47–49, 22:44– 47, 24:55), and Allen expressly teaches encoding the same content at bitrates of 56 kbps, 300 kbps, and 600 kbps (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 12:1–5). Based on these teachings, Petitioner shows sufficiently, on this record, that it would have been obvious to encode streaming video into low, medium, and high quality streams. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–70. We also are sufficiently persuaded on this record that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Allen with Ogdon to enable streaming video presentations for a variety of different available bandwidths. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; Ex. 1004, code (57). In particular, Ogdon’s teaching of retrieving alternatively sized presentations based on transmission data rates supports Petitioner’s proposed combination with Allen’s teaching of encoding video at different bitrates. See Ex. 1004, code (57) (stating that a greater-sized presentation for a “higher transmission rate” has “corresponding enhanced quality of presentation” compared to a reduced-sized version for a “low transmission data rate”), 22:44–47 (stating that “as the expected amount of time for retrieving one or more presentation elements lengthens, . . . better presentation quality presentation elements may be retrieved (e.g., the presentation quality may be enhanced from limited or no animation to full animation)”). And Petitioner establishes sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan reasonably would have expected success in making the combination, particularly given that Ogdon already contemplates alternative presentations for different transmission rates. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68, 70; Ex. 1004, code (57). Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to Ogdon alone and do not account for Petitioner’s proposed modification based on Allen.3 Such arguments do not show nonobviousness where Petitioner’s obviousness ground is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, to the extent Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify Ogdon as proposed, it fails to sufficiently explain this contention. For example, we do not read Ogdon to indicate that its presentation versions must be wholly different types of presentation materials, i.e., presentations in different languages or presentations tailored for different audiences. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 20–22) that Ogdon fails to teach or suggest video streaming for the same reasons discussed above.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Based on the present record, we find that the secondary considerations findings from the ITC Investigation do not undermine the sufficiency of Petitioner’s obviousness showing at this stage.5 We note that Patent Owner “bears the burden of production with respect to evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc., 896 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018). At this stage, Patent Owner merely references the findings of the ITC rather than adducing evidence of objective indica of nonobviousness in the first instance and attempting to establish a nexus to the invention of the ’555 patent. Further, Petitioner has adduced at least some evidence that the allegedly unique features of the Move Media Player were known in Ogdon, which tends to undermine the ITC’s nexus analysis. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 14:46–49, 22:48–63. We also disagree with Patent 5 Patent Owner also argues that Dr. Houh’s testimony is unreliable because he failed to consider evidence of secondary considerations from the ITC Investigation. Prelim. Resp. 42–43. We decline to discount Dr. Houh’s testimony on this basis. Regardless of whether Dr. Houh addressed secondary considerations, we find his testimony relevant at this stage to our consideration of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; and (3) the level of skill in the art. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Owner (Prelim. Resp. 41–42) that Ogdon does not disclose streaming video for the same reasons mentioned above. See supra §§ II.D.1, II.D.3.a. For these reasons, we find that the evidence of secondary considerations in the present record does not undermine Petitioner’s showing for purposes of institution. We also decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on Petitioner’s alleged failure to address secondary considerations. Patent Owner will have the opportunity at trial to produce evidence related to secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 30
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Claim 18 recites, inter alia, “at least one storage device configured to store live event video, the live event video encoded at a plurality of different bit rates creating a plurality of streams including at least a low quality stream and a high quality stream.” Ex. 1001, 20:45–49. Claim 18 additionally recites that “the low quality stream and the high quality stream each encod[e] the same portion of the live event video.” Id. at 20:50–53. Petitioner cites Ogdon’s discussion of storing different versions of a presentation. See Pet. 17–19. Patent Owner argues that Ogdon fails to teach multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, as required by the claim. Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 60). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Ogdon alone discloses storing the same portion of live event video as a low quality stream and a high quality stream. Although we preliminarily agree that Ogdon teaches the use of video as a version of a presentation, we do not agree that Ogdon alone discloses storing multiple copies of the same video. Specifically, Ogdon describes storing different versions of a presentation, rather than multiple copies of the same video.9 See Ex. 1004, code (57), 2:30–66, 13:47–49, 22:44–47, 24:55, claim 9. For these reasons, Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that Ogdon discloses claim 18. Petitioner’s analysis for claim 19, which depends from claim 18, is likewise deficient.” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,469,555 - Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00147 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any claim was obvious over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“to either: (1) “a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media,” or (2) “a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42). At this stage, Patent Owner “disputes Petitioner’s definition,” but does not explain what it disputes. Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’156 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases for purposes of this 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient basis for that contention. See Pet. 20– 21; PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that inherency requires a showing that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”). Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Ogdon suggests (or renders obvious) element 1[A][3]. See Pet. 19–21. Further, even if the Petition could be read as including such a contention, we would preliminarily find, on this record, that Ogdon does not suggest storing multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, and that Petitioner fails to provide any rationale to support a theory that element 1[A][3] would have been obvious over Ogdon alone.11 In other words, even if an ordinarily skilled artisan could have modified Ogdon to store multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, Petitioner does not provide any rationale to support a contention that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to implement Ogdon in this 11 The Board instituted inter partes review in other proceedings in which Petitioner contends that claim limitations including some of the same subject matter are taught or suggested by a combination of Ogdon and WO 02/075482 A2 (Allen). E.g., IPR2024-00044, Paper 1 at 21–24. There is no tension between this Decision and those other decisions because Petitioner’s contentions in those other proceedings are based on materially different arguments and evidence. manner. See, e.g., Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its contention that Ogdon discloses “the video server stores multiple different copies of the video encoded at different bit rates as multiple sets of streamlets,” as required by claim 1. Ex. 1001, 13:58–61 (element 1[A][3]). Consequently, Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Ogdon.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,757,156 - Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00048 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–8, and 10–21 were obvious over either asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to either: (1) “a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering streaming media,” or (2) “a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). At this stage, Patent Owner “disputes Petitioner’s definition,” but does not explain what it disputes. Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’772 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose any express claim constructions, but acknowledges that the claims have been construed in the ITC Investigation. Pet. 12–13. At this stage, “Patent Owner does not propose that the Board construe any claims.” Prelim. Resp. 2. We determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases for purposes of this 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 Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“video (id. at Abs., 2:30–61, 13:47–49, 24:55), and one passage specifically states that one presentation includes “video” while another includes “graphic slides” (id. at 2:61–66). Ogdon references “full animation” and “limited or no animation” (as an example of a “better presentation quality” element that may be retrieved when there is sufficient time to retrieve the data) (id. at 22:44–47), but it fails to disclose that these “animations” are different copies of the same video. Finally, one of Ogdon’s claims recites “a first video portion” and “a different second video portion that corresponds in content with said first video portion,” where the “first and second video portions have substantially different expected data transmission rates.” Id. at claim 9 (emphasis added). However, Petitioner does not sufficiently show that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood this (i.e., two videos with corresponding content) to teach two copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates. Dr. Houh’s testimony on this point is conclusory, and thus, we give it little weight. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 65; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); cf. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 61 n.9, 70–72 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Jeffay, reaching contrary conclusion given other disclosures in Ogdon). To the extent Petitioner seeks to rely on an inherent disclosure, Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient basis for that contention. See Pet. 21– 22; PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that inherency requires a showing that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”). Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Ogdon suggests (or renders obvious) element 1[A][2]. See Pet. 20–22. Further, even if the Petition could be read as including such a contention, we would preliminarily find, on this record, that Ogdon does not suggest storing multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, and that element 1[A][2] would have been obvious over Ogdon alone.10 In other words, even if an ordinarily skilled artisan could have modified Ogdon to store multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, Petitioner does not provide any rationale to support a contention that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to implement Ogdon in this manner. See, e.g., Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00047 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–8, 10, and 12–16 because neither the Ogdon ground nor the Ogdon–Shteyn–Chou ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to either: (1) “a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media,” or (2) “a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42). At this stage, Patent Owner “disputes Petitioner’s definition,” but does not explain what it disputes. Prelim. Resp. 1. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’564 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“video (id. at Abs., 2:30–61, 13:47–49, 24:55), and one passage specifically states that one presentation includes “video” while another includes “graphic slides” (id. at 2:61–66). Ogdon references “full animation” and “limited or no animation” (as an example of a “better presentation quality” element that may be retrieved when there is sufficient time to retrieve the data) (id. at 22:44–47), but it fails to disclose that these “animations” are different copies of the same video. Finally, one of Ogdon’s claims recites “a first video portion” and “a different second video portion that corresponds in content with said first video portion,” where the “first and second video portions have substantially different expected data transmission rates.” Id. at claim 9 (emphasis added). However, Petitioner does not sufficiently show that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood this (i.e., two videos with corresponding content) to teach two copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates. Dr. Houh’s testimony on this point is conclusory, and thus, we give it little weight. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 65; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); cf. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 61 n.9, 70–72 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Jeffay, reaching contrary conclusion given other disclosures in Ogdon).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, Ogdon never describes two copies of the same video presentation. It also does not refer to creating two copies of identical content (video or otherwise) that are encoded differently. As a result, although we preliminarily agree that Ogdon’s presentation teaches the claimed “video”,9 we do not agree that Ogdon teaches storing multiple copies of the same video, as required by element 1[A][3].” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,407,564
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.