- Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01318 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 because the related original petition had already been instituted, and denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,646,042 B1 (“the ’042 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00573 (“Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782. See IPR2024-00782, Paper 13. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00782. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00782],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“Here, Petitioner acknowledges that it “has two concurrent petitions challenging the validity of the same patent.” Notice 1. Although Petitioner provides “a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits” and “a succinct explanation of the differences” (id.), Petitioner requests that “should the Board decide to institute only a single petition against the ’042 patent, . . . the Board institute Petitioner’s Original Petition (in IPR2024-00782).” Id. Since, as discussed above, the Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder in the current IPR.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,646,042 B1 (“the ’042 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00573 (“Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’042 patent in IPR2024-00782. See IPR2024-00782, Paper 13. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00782. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00782],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01319 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because Google’s conditional request was not triggered after its earlier petition was instituted; it also denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,679,289 B1 (“the ’289 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00407 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783. See IPR2024-00783, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00783. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00783],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,679,289 B1 (“the ’289 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00407 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783. See IPR2024-00783, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00783. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00783],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“Here, Petitioner acknowledges that it “has two concurrent petitions challenging the validity of the same patent.” Notice 1. Although Petitioner provides “a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits” and “a succinct explanation of the differences” (id.), Petitioner requests that “should the Board decide to institute only a single petition against the ’289 patent, . . . the Board institute Petitioner’s Original Petition (in IPR2024-00783).” Id. Since, as discussed above, the Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’289 patent in IPR2024-00783, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder in the current IPR.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,679,289 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01320 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because it had instituted Google's original petition in IPR2024-00784, and denied Google's motion for joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDenied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 B1 (“the ’960 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00405 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. See IPR2024-00784, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00784. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00784],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder. Here, Petitioner acknowledges that it “has two concurrent petitions challenging the validity of the same patent.” Notice 1. Although Petitioner provides “a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits” and “a succinct explanation of the differences” (id.), Petitioner requests that “should the Board decide to institute only a single petition against the ’960 patent, . . . the Board institute Petitioner’s Original Petition (in IPR2024-00784).” Id. Since, as discussed above, the Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder in the current IPR.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDenied
“claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 B1 (“the ’960 patent”) (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) (Paper 3) to join Microsoft’s instituted proceeding in IPR2024-00405 (“the Microsoft IPR”), along with a Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions (“Notice”) (Paper 4). Petitioner also acknowledges that it previously filed a petition (“Original Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. Notice 1. Thus, Petitioner “requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition.” Id.; see also Motion 1. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’960 patent in IPR2024-00784. See IPR2024-00784, Paper 12. That is, we have not declined to institute Petitioner’s Original Petition in IPR2024-00784. Id. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based, i.e., “in abeyance until, and only if, the Board declines to institute [in IPR2024-00784],” has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,073,960 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01327 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 because the condition for Microsoft's petition and conditional joinder motion had not occurred.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“of claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 B1 (“the ’954 patent”) (Paper 3) and a Conditional Motion for Joinder (Paper 2). In the Conditional Motion for Joinder, Petitioner “respectfully requests that the Board institute review of IPR2024-01327 based on the concurrently-filed petition and that it grant this motion if, and only if, the Board has previously denied institution of Microsoft Corporation, v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024- 00846.” Paper 2, 1. Petitioner makes this request to “ensure that [it] is party to one (and only one) instituted inter partes review proceeding, preferably the proceeding inspired by [Petitioner’s] initial filing (i.e., the 846 Proceeding).” Id. at 1–2. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’954 patent in IPR2024-00846. See IPR2024-00846, Paper 8. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Conditional Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2024-01326 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 8–17 because the condition for Microsoft’s petition and conditional joinder motion was not met.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“of claims 1–6 and 8–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730 B2 (“the ’730 patent”) (Paper 3) and a Conditional Motion for Joinder (Paper 2). In the Conditional Motion for Joinder, Petitioner “respectfully requests that the Board institute review of IPR2024-01326 based on the concurrently-filed petition and that it grant this motion if, and only if, the Board has previously denied institution of Microsoft Corporation, v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024-00775.” Paper 2, 1. Petitioner makes this request to “ensure that [it] is party to one (and only one) instituted inter partes review proceeding, preferably the proceeding inspired by [Petitioner’s] initial filing (i.e., the 775 Proceeding).” Id. at 1–2. The Board has instituted an inter partes review of the ’730 patent in IPR2024-00775. See IPR2024-00775, Paper 9. Accordingly, the condition on which Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder is based has not come to pass. Therefore, we deny the Petition and the Conditional Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,352,730 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00784 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim across the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The plain meaning of “an integrated, secure memory storing local, secured information,” as claimed, suggests an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. See Pet. 28, 59; see also Prelim. Resp. 19–21. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “local, secured information” to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 23. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification “clearly defines ‘which information is used as local secured information.’” Prelim. Resp. 22. Although Patent Owner points to an “instance” in the Specification that it alleges is such a “clear[] defin[ition]” (id.), this portion of the Specification merely shows an exemplary embodiment and not a definition. See Ex. 1001, 3:50–57. In particular, the language Patent Owner points to in the Specification provides that “[i]n this example, the sensor 108 contains three of the service block access keys 118A, D, F,” wherein “[t]he service block access keys 118 allow the sensor 108 to unlock information stored in the corresponding service blocks 112, which information is used as local secured information.” See id. (emphasis added). That is, although the referenced portion of the Specification indicates that, in an example, information stored in a “service block” can be used as “local, secured information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secured information” to “information stored within service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner contends.6 Prelim. Resp. 23. Any special definition for “local, secured information” limiting it to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK” must be set forth in the Specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We do not discern such clarity, deliberateness, and precision to be present here.” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “the District Court found it necessary to construe the term ‘enabled.’” Prelim. Resp. 4. In particular, we disagree that the District Court in the Samsung case provided any construction for the term “enabled.” Id. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Ex. 2002, 26.7 That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, the District Court’s determination that “hybrid device” is not indefinite did not constitute a construction of that term, much less provide a construction of “enabled” recited elsewhere in the claim. In any case, even if assuming arguendo that the referenced portion of the district court’s Memorandum indicates that a POSITA could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim (id.), nothing in the Memorandum provides a definition of “enabled” as being limited to when an application, function, or service “receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key,” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 8. b) Means-plus function analysis Patent Owner further contends that the term “enabling” “may further be defined by way of a means-plus-function analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 8. According to Patent Owner, “§ 112, para 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting a sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Patent Owner contends that because none of “the ‘local secured information’, ‘wireless communication interface’ [and] ‘enablement signal’ provide sufficiently definite structure,” the term 7 Even if the Court’s explanation that “[a]n application, function, or service is ‘enabled’ by a PDK when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key” is an express construction, the Board is not required to adopt that construction. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“There is no dispute that the board is not generally bound by a prior judicial construction of a claim term.”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions. In particular, we are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 8. As Petitioner points out, “none of the claims of the ’960 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure (see Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021)), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that claim terms “wireless communication interface,” “local secured information,” and “enablement signal” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; accord Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–20 of the ’960 patent to determine whether: 1) claims 1–6, 8–11, and 14–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dua and Giobbi ’157; 2) claims 1–7, 10, 11, and 14–19 are unpatentable under 35” slip op. at 49
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,073,960 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00783 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–20 on five obviousness grounds: Dua and Giobbi ’157; that combination with Kotola; Buer; Buer with Giobbi ’157; and Buer with Nishikawa.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–20 of the ’289 patent to determine whether:” slip op. at 46
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“secured information,” as claimed, suggests an integrated, secure memory for storing information locally, wherein the information is secured. See Pet. 26– 27; see also Prelim. Resp. 28. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “local, secured information” to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 27. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification “clearly defines ‘which information is used as local secured information.’” Prelim. Resp. 28. Although Patent Owner points to an “instance” in the Specification that it alleges is such a “clear[] defin[ition],” this portion of the Specification merely shows an exemplary embodiment and not a definition. See Ex. 1001, 3:43–50. The language Patent Owner points to in the Specification provides that “[i]n this example, the sensor 108 contains three of the service block access keys 118A, D, F,” wherein “[t]he service block access keys 118 allow the sensor 108 to unlock information stored in the corresponding service blocks 112, which information is used as local secured information.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:43–50) (emphasis added). That is, although the referenced portion of the Specification indicates that, in an example, information stored in a “service block” can be used as “local secured information,” nothing in the Specification limits “local, secured information” to “information stored within service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK,” as Patent Owner contends.7 Id. Any special definition for “local, secured information” limiting it to “information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK” must be set forth in the Specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We do not discern such clarity, deliberateness, and precision to be present here. In view of the plain language of the claims and the Specification, we determine that the term “local, secured information” encompasses information stored locally on an integrated, secure memory, wherein the information is secured, and is not limited to information stored within a service block of a PDK and unlocked with a corresponding access key provided to the PDK.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The plain language of “hybrid device” does not suggest a requirement that the “hybrid device” comprises an integrated PDK. Further, nothing in the Specification clearly limits or redefines “hybrid device” to a device comprising an integrated PDK, as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 3– 4. Although Patent Owner contends that the District Court construed “hybrid device” as “comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK)” (id. (citing Ex. 2001, 3)), as Patent Owner points out, the District Court’s construction was predicated on the use of “PDK” in the “hybrid device” recited in the independent claims of a family member of the ’289 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3–4. In view of the plain language of the claims and the Specification, we determine that the term “hybrid device” recited in claims 1–16 and 19 is not limited to “comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK).” We determine no further explicit construction of this term is necessary to resolve the parties’ issues in controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 14. As Petitioner points out, “none of the claims of the ’289 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although, as Patent Owner argues, this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” (Prelim. Sur-reply 1 (citing Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021))), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that “PDK,” “RDC,” “enabling signal,” and “local secured information” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. Prelim. Resp. 14–17. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; accord Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,289 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00782 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 based on six § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“are unpersuaded that “enabling” may be defined by way of means-plus-function analysis. Prelim. Resp. 17. As Petitioner points out, “none of the independent claims of the ’042 patent recite the disputed limitation in ‘means-plus-function’ or ‘step-plus-function’ format.” Prelim. Reply 2. As Petitioner contends, when a disputed claim limitation does not employ “means for” language, the presumption is that each of the terms conveys sufficiently definite structure or act and, thus, is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. Id.; see also Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367. Although, as Patent Owner argues, this presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” (Prelim. Sur-reply 1 (citing Raining Computing v. Samsung Electronics America, 998 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2021))), we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that “PDK,” “RDC,” and “enabling signal,” fail to recite sufficiently definite structure. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. That is, Patent Owner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the terms could not be understood by person of ordinary skill in the art “to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure for the claimed functions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. According to Petitioner, the terms are “not used as ‘generic terms or black box recitations of structure or abstractions.’” Prelim. Reply 3; see Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368. As Petitioner points out, “when a ‘structure-connoting term . . . is coupled with a description of the ‘term’s’ operation’ § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.; see also Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368).” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “the District Court found it necessary to construe the term ‘enabled.’” Prelim. Resp. 13. In particular, we disagree that the District Court in the Samsung litigation provided any construction for the term “enabled.” Id. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. (citing Ex. 2002, 26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Ex. 2002, 26.8 That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, the District Court’s determination that “hybrid device” is not indefinite did not constitute a construction of that term, much less provide a construction of “enabled” recited elsewhere in the claims. In any case, even if assuming arguendo that the referenced portion of the District Court’s Memorandum indicates that a POSITA could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim (id.), nothing in the Memorandum provides a definition of “enabled” as being limited to “exchanging an access key for information held within a service block of a PDK,” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 28.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,646,042 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00775 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 12, and 14–17 are obvious over Burger and claims 3, 10, and 13 over Burger and Robinson.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of skill in the art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communications security,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill or propose an alternative. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“In IPR2024-00232, we made clear that “exclud[ing] any active participant in a transaction” from the construction of third-party trusted authority would exclude preferred embodiments of the ’730 patent and, therefore, is presumptively incorrect. IPR2024-00232, Paper 10 at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:42–46, 6:32–64, 7:10–22, Figs. 3–5, 7; Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). We also explained that “active participation alone does not make an entity a party to the transaction.” Id. at 22–23. Instead, we evaluate a party’s relationship to the transaction to determine whether it is a principal party to the transaction or a third-party. Id. at 11 (“The ‘witness’ role mentioned in the Specification (Ex. 1001, 6:35–38) refers to an agent’s relationship to the principal parties to the transaction, not to the level of activity the agent engages in.”), 22 (“We agree with Petitioner that, in this example, the TPCH is separate from, and thus a third party to, the principal parties to the transaction (the user and the vendor) and also a third party to the financial institution that pays the vendor.”). To be clear, below, we evaluate Petitioner’s showing as to obviousness over Burger based on the ordinary meaning of third-party trusted authority, namely, “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. Remaining claim terms (including “access message”) Patent Owner acknowledges that “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘access message’ is a message enabling entry to, communication with, or use of an object,” but argues that, “to capture all the disclosed embodiments,” enabling or announcing access,” allegedly consistent with a district court construction. Prelim. Resp. 2–7. As Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success under the arguably narrower ordinary meaning of “access message,” it is not necessary, at this stage of the proceeding, to further construe this term. Based on the preliminary record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “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 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,352,730 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00846 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–29, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–13, 15, 16, 18–24, and 26–29 are obvious over Burger.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). 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 . . . 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 the ’954 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“‘access message’ is a message enabling entry to, communication with, or use of an object,” but argues that, “to capture all the disclosed embodiments,” we should construe “access message” to mean “a signal or notification enabling or announcing access,” allegedly consistent with a district court construction. Prelim. Resp. 2–7. As Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success under the arguably narrower ordinary meaning of further construe this term. Based on the preliminary record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that “it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to incorporate the age verification method of Robinson in Burger so that Burger’s system can be used by businesses interested in conducting transactions that require age-verification.” Pet. 93. Petitioner argues that it would have been predictable to include Robinson’s age-verification feature in Burger’s system in light of Robinson’s explanation that merchants and their employees face penalties if they sell age-restricted goods (e.g., alcohol or tobacco) to underage individuals. Id. at 94–95 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–80). Dr. Traynor testifies that there would have been “a reasonable expectation of success because it merely involves combining known elements in a manner that would have been easily implemented and obvious to” a skilled artisan. Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. At this stage of the proceeding, we credit Dr. Traynor’s uncontroverted testimony. As to claims 3, 14, and 17, Petitioner points to Robinson’s description of a user registering a biometric sample, identity-verifying information (SID), and age-verifying information with a database of an age-verification system. Pet. 95–96 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 28, 43, 48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175– 178). Petitioner argues that, in the combination of Burger and Robinson, Robinson’s age-verifying information would be stored in the database of Burger’s network server 114. Id. at 95 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 176). Patent Owner does not yet provide separate arguments for claims 3, 14, and 17. Prelim. Resp. 26. On the current record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Robinson teaches the additional limitations of claims 3, 14, and 17, and that a skilled Burger and Robinson.” slip op. at 29
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Petitioner contends that Burger’s pocket vault 102 is “an integrated device.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 94–95, 118, 134, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). Petitioner argues that write-once memory 212, a storage element that is not capable of being subsequently altered, persistently stores biometric data of the user, and that other hard-wired memory stores a pocket vault ID and encryption/decryption information. Id. at 24–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 112, 114, 118, 127, 129, 154, 182, 551–552, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23, 91–96). Dr. Traynor testifies that it would have been obvious to implement the hardwired memory as protected, write-once memory so that sensitive information that is not subject to change (e.g., device ID, encryption information) is kept secure and not tampered with. Ex. 1003 ¶ 98. We credit this testimony at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954
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.