- Dropbox, Inc. / Microsoft Corporation v. Datanet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00079 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–20, and 23–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Kenley and Long; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“(5) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Combine We conclude a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 9,218,348 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,218,348 - Dropbox, Inc. / Microsoft Corporation v. Datanet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00078 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 8–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Kenley and Long; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“the ’478 patent, the applicant clearly and plainly informed the Office that an “[e]xemplary” embodiment of “searching the first temporary storage location for the archive file,” as recited in then-pending claim 34 and step [1.4] of issued claim 1, is found at specifically cited portions of the ’478 patent specification. See Ex. 1002, 147 (“Exemplary support may be found at . . . .”). Those specifically cited disclosures describe how smart data manager 15 “examines” input buffer 20 “for the presence of archive files” or equivalently “to determine whether any archive files are stored therein.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 2A (step 100), 5:39–42, 6:19–27. Based on this prosecution history, we conclude that in one embodiment of claim 1, searching the first temporary storage location for the archive file per step [1.4] is satisfied by examining the first temporary storage location for the presence of an archive file. We reach this conclusion even if the referenced portions of the ’478 patent specification are not regarded as being definitional with respect to the “searching” requirements of step [1.4].” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“(5) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Combine We conclude a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s” slip op. at 51
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 8,473,478 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,473,478 - Dropbox, Inc. / Microsoft Corporation v. Datanet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00080 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10–16, and 18–21 as obvious over Sweat, and claims 9 and 17 as obvious over Sweat and Schneider.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See PO Resp. 10–11 (“Patent Owner agrees to this definition proposed in the Petition.”). Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’850 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 7–8.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction principles, and does not revise or ignore the explicit language of the claims.”). In that vein, “[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.” Hockerson–Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.1999); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.”). Patent Owner’s interpretation that “the current version” requires two current versions — one locally stored current version and a corresponding remotely stored current version — asks us to improperly adopt a claim construction which ignores explicit claim language and context in order to read unrecited features into the claim. The limitation in question, more fully and in better context, recites “storing the selected previous version . . . as the current version on the local storage location.” Ex. 1001, 9:24–26 (emphasis added). The express language shows that the claim is specifically directed to the current version on the local storage location and not any possible remote current version. As such, even if there were a “current version on the remote storage location” which corresponds to and is kept in parity with the current version on the local storage location, i.e., a backup copy of the locally stored current version, the claim does not recite that feature, establishing that it does not require that feature. Further, as to the context of the claim, the term in question is part of a recited method of restoring a file to a previous version of the file on a local computational machine, rather than a method for maintaining parity of remotely stored backup files during that restoration process. See id. at 8:63–9:28. As such, the explicitly recited claim language and the context of the claim do not support reading an unrecited remote backup feature into the claim.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“been obvious to use the “Download” feature described by Sweat to replace a corrupted or otherwise compromised file, thus meeting “storing the selected previous version . . . as the current version on the local storage location.” Pet. 60–62. First, regarding the technical operation of Sweat’s download function, Petitioner explains that a user “download[s] a version of [a] file from the server 106 to the local computer 104” and selects a local “target location to save the selected file.” Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:58–63). Sweat’s download function “[c]opies the file or folder to the user’s local computer” and can “overwrite files that exist on the user’s local computer, as desired.” Ex. 1006, 5:49–55. From those disclosures, Petitioner asserts it would have been obvious to use Sweat’s download function “to restore a previous version of a file by copying the file to the user’s local computer and overwriting the current version of the file on the user’s local computer, so as to save the restored file as the new current version of that file.” Pet. 62 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 125– 126). Petitioner explains that the download function would be used in such a manner where a user “desire[s] to restore a previous version of the file to replace the current version for example, in the case where the newest version of the file has become corrupted or where desired data has been deleted from” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner. Sweat’s description of its “Viewing Files” feature explains that “a user must install the appropriate viewer to open and view drawing files.” Ex. 1006, 23:38–41. Sweat lists examples of such viewers including software applications such as Volo™ View Express. Id. at 23:45–46, 23:63–67. While Sweat does not list a CAD file creating application in its exemplary list of viewers in that “Viewing Files” section (see id. at 23:38–24:35), elsewhere, Sweat states that a CAD application, e.g., “AutoCAD®,” is “drawing/viewing software utilized by the viewer” (id. at 23:29–33). Furthermore, Petitioner’s declarant offers undisputed testimony that AutoCAD is software for creating CAD drawing files and can also be used to view those created CAD drawing files. Ex. 1024 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1029, 19–23, 541–542). On that evidence, we agree a POSITA would understand that Sweat describes using a viewer to preview previous versions of CAD drawing files and that Sweat also describes AutoCAD (which creates CAD drawing files) can be used as a viewer. In light of that understanding, we agree it would have been obvious to use AutoCAD, i.e., “an application that created the file,” to preview previous versions of that file. Pet. 62–63. We also agree that it would have been rational to do so because the same already locally available software application which created the file could then be used to view the file. Id.; see Ex. 1004 ¶ 128. Owner dismisses Petitioner’s obviousness argument as “irrelevant,” and, instead, argues that Sweat does not disclose the claimed features. PO Sur- Reply 16–17; see PO Resp. 39–40. In particular, Patent Owner argues Sweat “discloses the use of specialized viewing software to view the related file” and emphasizes that “CAD software is clearly not being used in Sweat’s ‘View in Window’ functionality” PO Resp. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1006, 23:39–51); PO Sur-Reply 17. While it may be the case that Sweat does not outright disclose the features recited in the claim, those arguments do not show fault in Petitioner’s case that the claimed features would have been obvious. See CRFD Rsch., Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Even if a reference’s teachings are insufficient to find anticipation, that same reference’s teachings may be used to find obviousness.”); Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A claimed invention may be obvious even when the prior art does not teach each claim limitation.”), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 is obvious over Sweat.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,585,850 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,585,850 - Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2023-01460 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Dua, Hong, and Lockwood; the Board did not reach the additional grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“lululemon proposes, and Nike does not dispute, that one skilled in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–45); see also PO Resp. 13 (“Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). There being no dispute, we adopt lululemon’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“lululemon asserts that “the plain and unambiguous language of the claim[s] requires that the flat-knitted element having the claimed features must be formed from a flat-knitting process.” Pet. 13–14. Nike agrees, and 1 US 3,641,603, issued Feb. 15, 1972 (Ex. 1003, “Lockwood”). 2 US 2005/0193592 A1, published Sep. 8, 2005 (Ex. 1004, “Dua”). 3 US 6,558,784 B1, issued May 6, 2003 (Ex. 1011, “Norton”). 4 H. Hong, The development of 3D shaped knitted fabrics for technical purposes on a flat knitting machine, INDIAN JOURNAL OF FIBRE & TEXTILE RESEARCH, VOL. 19, PGS. 189–194 (Sep. 1994) (Ex. 1005, “Hong”). 5 US 2006/0053658 A1, published Mar. 16, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Voughlohn”). notes that our Institution Decision adopted that construction, i.e., “that the ‘domed, three dimensional structure’ of the ‘flat-knitted element,’ recited in claims 1, 10, and 11, is formed ‘during the flat-knitting process.’” PO Resp. 12 (quoting Inst. Dec. 6). Thus, the parties make clear that the claims do not encompass forming the claimed “three-dimensional structure” after the flatknitting process is complete. Thus, we maintain the construction in our Institution Decision that the claimed “central portion having a domed, threedimensional structure” must be formed during the flat-knitting process, and not afterward.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Nike and its expert mischaracterize Hong. After close review of the opinions of both parties’ experts, we credit the opinion of lululemon’s expert as more consistent with Hong’s disclosure than that of Nike’s expert. In particular, lululemon’s expert points to Hong’s unmistakable and explicit disclosure that “knitting directly the 3D shapes can overcome fabric waste and diminish the labour cost inherent to the use of two-dimensional fabrics.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 91 (quoting Ex. 1005, 5) (emphasis added). That disclosure by Hong of “knitting directly” the 3D shape clearly suggests it is formed as part of Hong’s flat-knitting process, and not as part of some post-knit seaming process. Hong’s additional disclosure of “diminish[ing] the labour cost inherent to the use of two-dimensional fabrics” also cuts against Nike’s notion of an additional step of “forming that two-dimensional pattern piece into a three-dimensional structure” following the flat knitting step. See PO Resp. 21–22.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d. Conclusion For all the above reasons, we find that the combination of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood teaches or suggests an article of footwear having “a domed, three-dimensional structure” that is formed during “a flat-knitting process” and “shaped to extend above the plane” of “flattened” side portions, as recited in claims 1 and 11. We also find that one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of succeeding in forming an article of footwear having such a domed, three-dimensional structure as a result of combining the teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood. And, because Nike does not otherwise contest that one skilled in the art would have had sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood or that such combination discloses the remaining elements of claims 1 and 11, we need not further address those uncontested elements. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Board, having found the only disputed limitations together in one reference, was not required to address undisputed matters.”). Thus, we conclude that lululemon demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Dua, Hong, and Lockwood.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,730,484 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,730,484 - PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01142 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 18 under § 314(a), concluding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“denial because district court is very likely to address patentability issues at trial before we would issue a final written decision. Factors 3 and 4 weigh marginally against discretionary denial. Factor 5 either weighs in favor of discretionary denial or is neutral, but even if it were neutral, factor 2 alone outweighs the marginal weight of factors 3 and 4. Based on our assessment, we determine that Fintiv Factors 1–5 favor exercising discretion to deny institution. With that determination in mind, we proceed to evaluate Fintiv Factor 6. G. Fintiv Factor 6: Other Circumstances that Impact the Board’s Exercise” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“We further note that Petitioner’s general view that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung to arrive at the pertinent limitation is not well supported and somewhat circular. See Pet. 42–43. It is inadequately explained why a skilled artisan would have reasonably sought to modify Jung so that it then “expressly teaches” what is required by the claims, as is advanced by Petitioner. See id. at 42. It is a dubious proposition that simply seeking to account for the requirements of the challenged claims serves as suitable reasoning that would have prompted modification of the “express[] teach[ings]” of a reference.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’868 patent (“POSITA”) would have had a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems. Ex-1003, ¶ 48. A POSITA would also have familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks. Id. More education may supplement practical experience or vice versa. Id. Pet. 20–21. Patent Owner does not offer an assessment of its own, or dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. For this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“proceeding. See Pet. 12. Patent Owner provides a construction of the phrase “to derive, based on a beam reference signal of the network beam, a UE beam,” which Patent Owner contends is not necessary to substantiate its arguments, but is offered to “elucidate[] the distinction between the ’868 Patent and the alleged prior art from the reasons” offered by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. PO Resp. 8. In particular, Patent Owner contends that the above-noted phrase means “selecting a UE beam from a plurality of candidate UE beams based on a beam reference signal of the network beam.” Id. Patent Owner explains the basis for its proposed construction of the relevant phrase through citation to content of the ’868 patent including Figures 21 and 22 of the patent along with description of those Figures. See Prelim. Resp. 8–10. In reviewing the basis for Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, we conclude that the construction has ample and adequate support in the record before us. We determine that no other claim term need be addressed expressly 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 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,887,868 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00950 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable; claims 15–22 were shown unpatentable over Markel. The revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In carefully and faithfully wrangling the parties’ views and explanation as to the meaning of limitation [1.c.iii], we conclude that Petitioner’s “correct interpretation” of that limitation is that a first pad is recognized as a distinct structure or component from a first portion of an enclosure, and that the pad is positioned underneath that first portion in a manner such that the pad is concealed from a user. We adopt that interpretation. We determine that it is unnecessary to discuss an express construction for any other term to resolve this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Nevertheless, our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not appear to disagree that Markel, itself, does not convey that an electrode, or any structure identifiable as a “pad,” is positioned underneath any surface of any enclosure. Rather, Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability is premised on modification of Markel to so position such a pad. Although seemingly acknowledging that Markel contemplates a concealment technique involving molding an electrode into an exterior surface, Petitioner extrapolates from that disclosure that a skilled artisan would be motivated to try an alternative means of concealing an electrode pad by placing the pad underneath an outer layer or portion, i.e., “audio output portion 610.” See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 135). Neither Petitioner, nor Dr. Kenny, however, meaningfully explains why a skilled artisan would have deviated from Markel’s express teachings of concealing an electrode via molding techniques to then arrive at an entirely different concealment approach of placing an electrode pad underneath the audio output portion. Petitioner’s modification proposal in that regard appears borne of hindsight bias based on the disclosure of the ’257 patent rather than any dutiful consideration of what Markel’s actual teachings would have conveyed to a skilled artisan. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 84 (Dr. Kenny explaining why Petitioner’s proposed modification to Markel to hide the electrode underneath a plastic conductive layer was based on improper hindsight). Such hindsight bias is impermissible. See, e.g., Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - Elmos Semiconductor SE v. Texas Instruments IncorporatedInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00802 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–20 would be unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“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 would 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 “a person having ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) at the relevant time, would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent experience of at least two years working in the field of the design electrical driver systems for Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).” Pet. 20. Patent Owner has not addressed the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as articulated above. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ432 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases to reach our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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))). Petitioner’s constructions do not affect our determinations, and, even under Petitioner’s constructions, Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to its proposed grounds of unpatentability for the challenged claims of the ’432 Patent.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“First, even under Petitioner’s assertion that “controller RG . . . performs the functions of an error amplifier and amplifier output stage” (id. at 37), Petitioner has not adequately shown that controller RG meets all three of “an error amplifier,” “a control voltage,” and “an amplifier output stage.” Petitioner’s assertions that those elements are “interior to” or “include[d]” in controller RG are conclusory and unsupported. Petitioner summarizes and reproduces portions of Sudhaus regarding the output currents of controller RG, but has not explained the relevance of its summary and reproduction with respect to each recited claim element. See id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:32–33, 4:25–28, 4:46–50, 8:47–55), 40– 41. Nor has Petitioner explained why or how the summarized or reproduced portions of Sudhaus show that those claim elements are interior or included in controller RG. See id. Further, Petitioner also fails to show how Sudhaus teaches the claimed interactions and relations between the error amplifier, control voltage, and amplifier output stage. The claim recites the error amplifier compares voltages to “generate a control voltage” and the amplifier output stage controls output current “based on the control voltage.” Petitioner has not explained what specific signal controller RG generates that teaches a “control voltage” used to control output current. Nor has Petitioner stated, let alone explained how, controller RG generates a control voltage in the claimed manner and controls output current based on that control voltage. Simply because controller RG produces outputs that are allegedly similar to the claimed outputs does not by itself show that controller RG produces the claimed outputs using the claimed elements in the claimed manner.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,653,432 - PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00850 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–12, 14, and 23–27 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of proving them obvious over Raizer and Hangzhou.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’632 Patent would have been a person with a working knowledge of mechanical design and automation. That person would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of mechanical, automation, and robotics technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience. Alternatively, that person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶42-43). More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa (Ex. 1003, ¶¶42-43).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that any claim term has a meaning other than its ordinary and customary meaning. See, e.g., Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 8. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing 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
“reasons why a skilled artisan would have sought to combine the teachings of Raizer and Hangzhou. See supra § IID.3. On this record, and for purposes of institution, we find those contentions persuasive. For example, as Petitioner observes (see, e.g., Pet. 7), and which is not disputed by Patent Owner, Hangzhou sets forth that, in the area of automating warehouses, it is a known and recognized practice to provide pathways (e.g., auto-guided trolley passage spaces 112) underneath shelving units for movement of automated trolleys or robots. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 48 (“an auto-guided trolley 200 preferentially travels in column laneways 32 and in auto-guided trolley passage spaces 112”); Fig. 2. Patent Owner also does not meaningfully dispute Dr. Derby’s testimony that “[i]t was well known to elevate the shelving units above the floor so that robots loaded with containers can travel underneath thereby allowing for more flexible route planning and the elimination of bottlenecks.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 107; see also id at Section VI., ¶¶ 45–53 (describing in detail, with citation to record evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art understood that shelving units could be elevated above warehouse floors).” slip op. at 27
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“PETITION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314 IS WARRANTED Patent Owner requests that we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See Prelim. Resp. 34–36. The principle basis for that request is that the panel should accept Patent Owner’s arguments as to insufficient reason or motivation to combine the teachings of Raizer and Hangzhou, and exercise discretion to deny on that basis. See id. at 34. As set forth above, however, on this record we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in its challenge to all the challenged claims.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,472,632 - Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00643 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Willner and Park; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The main distinction between Petitioner’s ordinarily skilled artisan and Patent Owner’s is that Patent Owner’s definition requires “a mechanical engineering degree” whereas Petitioner’s definition allows for a degree in “mechanical, electrical, or computer engineering.” See Pet. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 13). However, Mr. Kitchen states that he qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art based on Patent Owner’s proffered definition “even without an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering” because he has “over 40 years of experience in the design and development of interactive products, including specifically with respect to handheld gaming devices.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–30). Mr. Kitchen asserts that his experience is in “the same category of products claimed in the ’393 patent and described in the prior art references at issue in this proceeding.” Id. In view of this and based on the complete record before us, we view the parties’ proposals as substantially the same because Petitioner’s proposed definition includes the requisite education Patent Owner’s definition requires. Thus, we find (as we did in the Institution Decision) that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’393 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 20–21 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). More particularly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the education component for the level of ordinary skill in the art for computing gaming devices would be limited to just mechanical engineering. We note that, based on the record and evidence before us, our decision and analysis would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“After reviewing the full record, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe the term “confinement structures,” as it appears in the limitation “a pair of confinement structures” to reach a determination in this proceeding. 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)). However, we will address the parties’ dispute regarding whether the prior art discloses or teaches physical component(s) that hold(s) a computing device within our merits analysis below. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“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., 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“First, the test for obviousness “is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, . . . but rather whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 11–12 (arguing the same). Second, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed combination would fail “to retain[] computing device 10 in position during normal user operation” because Park’s adjustable bridge “configuration does not allow mobile phone (1) to be seated for stability in the device.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 42; Ex. 2004 ¶ 68). At the outset, we note that Patent Owner’s argument mischaracterizes the disclosure of Park. Instead, we find Park discloses that a “basic configuration of [Park’s] game pad device for a mobile phone according to the present invention” “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 41. Although Park discloses that “mobile phone (1) may come loose during gaming or become detached in severe cases” (id. ¶ 41), we do not view this disclosure to otherwise negate Park’s teaching that its adjustable bridge (30,40) “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Id. We credit Mr. Kitchen’s declaration testimony to that effect. See Ex. 1033 ¶ 47 (declaring that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood this disclosure to mean that a computing device (mobile phone) would have been secured by the device for normal use . . . as part of a handheld gaming device.”).” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner and find more credible Mr. Kitchen’s opinion regarding “normal user operation.” In doing so, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s opinion that Willner’s sidewalls would “function to secure the sides of the computing device and hold it in place” and, “[i]n the combination, Park’s bridge would be adjusted to reduce the length of the bridge and thereby ‘mount’ a computing device by having Willner’s side walls (confinement structures) ‘apply pressure’ to opposing sides of the computing device.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–156 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–41). We note that the ’393 patent operates in a similar manner using a sufficient compressive load to hold a computing device. More particularly, the ’393 patent discloses that [t]he expansion and contraction of the distance between the pair of confinement structures 316, facilitates placement of the computing device 302 between the pair of confinement structures 316, the application of sufficient compressive load being placed on the computing device 302 to securely hold the computing device between the pair of confinement structures 316. Ex. 1001, 10:11–20. Thus, we find Mr. Kitchen’s opinion credible and supported by the complete record. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Willner and Park teaches or suggests “a pair of confinement structures,” as recited by limitation 1[b][1].” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,391,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,391,393 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,076,257
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.