- PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00131 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 on all petitioned grounds and granted ecobee’s motion to join the Copeland IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Copeland IPR. Copeland IPR, Paper 12, 2 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2023). Petitioner challenges the same claims and asserts the same grounds of unpatentability as those on which we instituted the Copeland IPR. Mot. 1 (The Petition and” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Practice Guide (“CTPG”) for evaluating a joinder motion.8 CTPG 76 (citing Kyocera Corp. v. Softview, LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15, 4 (PTAB April 24, 2013)) and contends the factors weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to join Petitioner as a party to the Copeland IPR. Mot. 4. In evaluating the Motion, we consider the reasons why joinder may be appropriate, whether the Petition presents any new grounds of patentability, the impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule in the Copeland IPR, and how briefing and discovery may be simplified. CTPG 76.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“For this factor, our concerns are the “inefficiency” of addressing “substantially identical prior art arguments that were at issue in the district court” and the resulting “possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 12. The Director’s Fintiv Memo is in accord with these concerns. Fintiv Memo at 7 (“[T]he PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.”). Because there is no possibility of our Final Written Decision in the joined proceeding conflicting with the judgment of the district court, and there will be little, if any, inefficiency or burden on the Board in proceeding with joinder, we find that this factor weighs heavily against exercising our discretion to deny institution/joinder.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“Patent Owner admits that Petitioner has not previously filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’887 patent. Opp. 12. Under Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB April 2, 2019) (precedential), General Plastic may apply when parties that have a “significant relationship” file successive petitions against the same patent. Valve Corp., Paper 11 at 10. In Valve, the successive petitioners were found to have a significant relationship because they were “co-defendants in the District Court litigation and were accused of infringing” the patent being challenged before the Board. Id. Patent Owner admits it “is not aware of a close relationship between Petitioner and Copeland Comfort Control LP.” Prelim. Sur-reply 4. In fact, Copeland and Petitioner are not co-defendants. Consequently, there is no “significant relationship” between Petitioner and Copeland. Patent Owner argues that General Plastic Factors 2, 4, and 6 weigh against joinder. Opp. 14. The Director, however, recently determined that where “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors” and that “exercising discretion to deny the Petition is not justified.” Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited, IPR2023-01218, Paper 12, 6–7 (PTAB April 19, 2024) (Decision Granting Director Review). Regardless of whether the other factors weigh against joinder or not, factor one “necessarily outweighs” the other factors. Consequently, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution or joinder in this case based on General Plastic.” slip op. at 17
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,746,887 - PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00208 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds and declining discretionary denial under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“Office conducted any analysis or evaluation of Wu. There is no mention of Wu by the Examiner and no articulated consideration of Wu by the Office. As noted above, Advanced Bionics provides that “[a]t bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9 (emphasis added). Here, despite Wu (or more precisely, the substantially identical Wu. Publ.) having been previously presented to the Office, we are not directed to, and we cannot find, any analysis or evaluation by the Office of Wu in the file history. See generally Ex. 1002.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,709 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’709 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”) at 1. SES-Imagotag Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 12, “Prelim. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 13, “Prelim. Sur-reply”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“necessary to resolve the controversy involved in this IPR, and the terms of the ’709 Patent should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 4. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage, no need exists to expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“planogram” (id. at 37). We determine that these contentions lack merit and Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Wu discloses these limitations.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,010,709 - PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00188 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–15 on both §103 grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, and the Sur-reply “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–15 of the ’669 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“systems, or an equivalent field with two or more years of work experience in electrical engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, computer engineering, or an equivalent field.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Petitioner further notes that “[a]dditional education in a relevant field or relevant industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art at this time. Prelim. Resp. 18 n.5 (“For purposes of this [Preliminary Response] only, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.5 It is supported by the testimony of Dr. Tentzeris and not disputed by Patent Owner. Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“the ‘communication stage’ recited in element [1.3] is simply a ‘communication module or unit’ that communicates data.” Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:49–50, 2:19–20, 3:24–28, 3:63–65; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–76). In response, Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner offers a brand-new claim construction for ‘communication stage,’” which “the Petition never offered,” and also that “Petitioner offers its new construction based exclusively on attorney argument without the benefit of evidence in support.” Sur-reply 6, 9. To the extent necessary to determine whether to institute trial, we address these arguments as part of our unpatentability analysis below. See infra § II.D.3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See, e.g., 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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“supposed well-recognized need in synchronizing video displays and that “[t]he only evidence Petitioner offers to explain why a POSITA would have modified Swafford with Masumoto relies on hindsight and two references besides Swafford and Masumoto—Yamada (Ex. 1010) and Kipp (Ex. 1006).” Prelim. Resp. 34–35. At least at this stage, as Petitioner’s contentions are supported by evidence including an expert declaration and Patent Owner’s contrary arguments are unsupported attorney argument, we give more weight to Petitioner’s contentions and find them sufficient to support the asserted combination of teachings. However, we do agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contention that the cited combination of teachings is supported “because of the structural similarity between Swafford’s and Masumoto’s devices” (Pet. 54– 55) does not provide a motivation to combine. Prelim. Resp, 35–36. The only structural similarity relied on by Petitioner in support of this argument is that Swafford and Masumoto both disclose use of LCDs. See Pet. 54–55. Petitioner provides an inadequate explanation as to how or why the use of LCDs which are a common form of video displays would motivate the combination of the relied-upon teachings. But, this deficiency does not undermine the persuasiveness of Petitioner’s overall showing of motivation to combine. We determine that Petitioner shows sufficiently, for the purpose of institution, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the relied-upon teachings of Swafford and Masumoto with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,405,669 - PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00189 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success based on Fujiwara, Fujiwara and Arntzen, Bandy and Fowler, and Bandy, Fowler, and Arntzen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will succeed on all its challenges to patentability, namely: claims 1–9 as obvious over Fujiwara; claims 1–9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Fujiwara and Arntzen; claims 1– 5 and 8–9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Bandy and Fowler; and claims 1–5 and 8–9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Bandy, Fowler, and Arntzen. XII. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) an inter partes review of the ’340 Patent is hereby instituted, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial;” slip op. at 52
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinarily skilled artisan”) as one having “at least a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, or an equivalent field (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree).” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1009, Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 34). Petitioner also states that “[a]lternatively, a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, or an equivalent field with two or more years of work experience in electrical engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, computer engineering, or an equivalent field” and that “[a]dditional education in a relevant field or relevant industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of these requirements.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009, Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 34). Patent Owner does not comment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As the subject matter of the ’340 patent and the references appears to be consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art described by Petitioner, we apply Petitioner’s description for purposes of the Decision. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner proposes that the terms of the ’340 patent claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 3. Patent Owner contends that Fujiwara does not use the term “planogram” and that Petitioner has not demonstrated Fujiwara discloses the claimed planogram. Prelim. Resp. 19–22. The ’340 patent states “[a] planogram lists the locations of all the electronics labels [3] and of the items on sale in a sales area.” Ex. 1001, 6:35–37. Patent Owner also notes that Fowler states that “[a] planogram is a diagram of fixtures and products that illustrates how and where retail products should be displayed, usually on a store shelf, bin or counter in order to influence consumer selection.” Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 221). In view of these descriptions of a planogram, we agree with the parties that no further construction of this term is required. slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,674,340 - Hanshow America Inc. / Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd v. Ses-Imagotag Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00190 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–9, exercising discretion because the second-ranked petition’s grounds were insufficiently shown to be materially different from those in the instituted first-ranked petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Having instituted trial in the -189 IPR and considered all the arguments and evidence of record presented in this proceeding, we exercise our discretion and decline to institute trial in the -190 IPR. VIII. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, it is ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED.” slip op. at 11
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“not present in a higher-ranked petition weighs against instituting on the lower-ranked petition, the mere existence of the potential dispute in the lower-ranked petition alone need not be determinative. We consider other circumstances of this case. Petitioner presents other challenges in the -190 IPR that address all the challenged claims, but do not rely on Ghosh (Grounds 1–3 challenge claims 1–9 based on combinations of Siotia, Sakata, Akao, and Chen; Grounds 4–6 challenge claims 1–3 and 5–9 (claim 4 is not challenged) based on various combinations of Ghosh, Sakata, Akao, and Chen). Thus, even if Patent Owner removed Ghosh as prior art, Petitioner’s other challenges to all the claims that are challenged on multiple grounds in the -189 IPR would remain, with Siotia replacing Ghosh in the -190 IPR. As discussed further below, Petitioner’s ranking does not explain sufficiently why the Siotia-based challenges remaining in the -190 IPR are not cumulative to the Fujiwara based challenges and the Bandy/Fowler based challenges articulated in the -189 IPR.” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,674,340 - Datavant, Inc. v. Vigilytics LLCInstitutedPTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00226 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–19 on all asserted obviousness grounds based on Evenhaim; Evenhaim with Settimi; Dick with Landi; and Dick, Landi, with Murphy.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018) (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”). We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’641 patent and all asserted grounds of unpatentability. See SAS Inst. Inc. v Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“patent would have possessed “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the field of computer science, focusing on data privacy, computer networking and/or data records management.” Pet. 9 (citing Clark Decl. ¶ 22). Petitioner adds that “[s]uperior education could compensate for less work experience, and vice-versa.” Id. We regard Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“from Patent Owner’s claim-construction brief in the related district court litigation and “adopts these constructions for this proceeding.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1010, 9–20). Patent Owner’s brief identifies these as “disputed claim terms.” Ex. 1010, i (Table of Contents). The brief indicates that Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s construction for each of the terms. Id. at 1 (referring to the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement). As Petitioner expressly “adopts these constructions for this proceeding” (Pet. 8), we understand these constructions to be Petitioner’s identification of “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3) (2023). Without a Patent Owner Preliminary Response, we are not in a position to determine which constructions, if any, are necessary and disputed. Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. Nevertheless, at this stage, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial.” slip op. at 16
Claim constructioncites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,118,641 - PTAB · Apr 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00005 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 9 and 19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Gowanlock 2 combined with Swivelpole renders at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“District Court proceeding, and restate those positions here. See Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1057, Ex. 1058); Prelim. Resp. 5. Both parties agree, however, that construction of “mounting pole” is not necessary in this proceeding. Pet. 21; Prelim. Resp. 5. Accordingly, we need not construe this term at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, construction, architecture, or a similar degree with a year or more experience working on or around rigs, such as a drilling rig, where one or more lighting systems were used to illuminate the wellsite.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 39–40). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditional practical experience would substitute for lack of a formal degree.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 41). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’626 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“As to motivation to combine the references, we find that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates a rational basis for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gowanlock 2 and Swivelpole. See Pet. 43– 51; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 89–96. Patent Owner’s argument that the combination “goes against the fundamental teachings of both references, neither of which disclose a crown deck” (Prelim. Resp. 50) is not persuasive, because as discussed above, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Gowanlock 2 discloses a crown deck. We do not agree that Swivelpole’s disclosure is limited to a lighting system for illuminating the area immediately beneath the light, and nothing beyond its adjacent walkway. See id. at 50–51. For example, Swivelpole’s description of its S3 system also states it is ideal for lighting roof tops. Ex. 1004, 9. Because Patent Owner’s argument does not reasonably credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Swivelpole’s disclosure as a whole, we do not find it persuasive.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in failing to consider the teachings of the prior art of record. Under the second prong of Advanced Bionics, we consider “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection.” Becton, Dickinson, 17. Here, Petitioner has shown that during prosecution of the ’626 patent, the Examiner immediately allowed claims 21–33 and 35–39 of the application without rejection, in the first office action dated November 25, 2020. Ex. 1002, 34–35. The reasons for allowance set forth in the office action merely recite the limitations of claims 21 and 31, and state “the references of the Prior Art of record fail to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim [21 and 31].” Id. Upon issuance, claims 21 and 31 became claims 9 and 19 of the ’626 patent, respectively. In view of the Examiner’s statement in the reasons for allowance of claims 9 and 19, we determine the Examiner erred by failing to consider the prior art of record. As discussed above with regard to the patentability challenges to claims 9 and 19 (see Section II.D.4), we find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Gowanlock 2 and Swivelpole discloses the subject matter found allowable by the Examiner. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability by overlooking the teachings of Gowanlock 2 and Swivelpole. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). IV.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,900,626 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2022-01535 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; accord In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the “‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’”; “‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’”; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–21 (2007)). In determining whether a claim would have been obvious in light of the prior art, when in evidence, we consider any relevant objective evidence of non-obviousness. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of non-obviousness, may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Patent Owner does not present evidence of such objective considerations.4 We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with these principles to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to establish unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Responsive to Patent Owner proposed that, applying the plain and ordinary meaning, we construe “responsive to” to require that the claimed applying and communicating steps “must be performed based on a packet satisfying a packet-filtering rule based on network-threat indicators.” PO Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner: the “responsive to language” of the claims establishes a relationship between (i) a packet satisfying a packet filtering rule based on one or more network-threat indicators and (ii) the subsequent application of an operator that allows the packet to continue and communication of information indicating the packet was allowed to continue. Id. at 7. “Petitioner agrees that ‘responsive to’ in the claims requires that the applying and communicating steps must occur responsive to a determination extent, we do not perceive a dispute between the parties concerning the construction of “responsive to” and we apply the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., that steps recited in the claim as being performed “responsive to” a determination, e.g., “applying an operator,” are performed after the relevant determination is made.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“[u]nless the packet’s contents match the keywords of the intrusion rule, the 3D Sensor does not trigger the intrusions rule’s action (e.g., alert, drop) or generate an intrusion event.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 404–405, 761– 762, 769–770, 776–777; Ex. 2004, Goodrich Decl. ¶ 56). According to Patent Owner, a Sourcefire packet can match the IP address in a rule header but, if packet contents do not match specified keywords and argument to generate an intrusion event, a rule is not triggered. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 404–405, 761–762, 766–767, 769–770, 776–777). At the oral hearing Patent Owner argued: So there is no disclosure in Sourcefire that you would trigger a rule responsive to satisfying that rule based on network threat-indicators. As alluded to earlier on page 16 of the demonstratives, Sourcefire tells you what the intrusion rule is. It is a specified set of key words and arguments. It is not the rule header. The rule header is only used to determine whether or not a particular rule will be applied to network traffic. You know, neither of these issues were before the Board or decided in the earlier case. slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Sourcefire. The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; accord In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the “‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’”; “‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’”; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–21 (2007)). In determining whether a claim would have been obvious in light of the prior art, when in evidence, we consider any relevant objective evidence of non-obviousness. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of non-obviousness, may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Patent Owner does not present evidence of such objective considerations.4” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,609,062 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,609,062 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2022-01607 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Roese, Golnabi, Huima, and Hayter; claims 3, 11, and 19 are also obvious over those references with Esbensen.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party defending against preclusion] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that issue preclusion applies in the administrative context).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Petitioner contends that in the 01454 FWD, the Board found that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art in January 2013 would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of professional experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 6 (citing 01454 FWD, 5). Petitioner asserts that the same level of ordinary skill in the art should apply in this proceeding. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). Patent Owner also adopts the level of ordinary skill in the art from the 01454 FWD. PO Resp. 8–9 (citing 01454 FWD, 5). For purposes of this Decision, we find no reason to deviate from the Board’s previous determination and, therefore, adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art previously found by the Board in the 01454 FWD.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Second, Patent Owner argues that the challenged claims require “the caching of entire packets, not just the relevant portion of every incoming packet.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 43). Patent Owner’s declarant states that “[a] POSITA would understand that because the term packet is used to describe both the unit of data received at the network device and the unit of data that is cached, the Challenged Claims require caching the entirety of the packet received at the network device, which generally includes both header and payload data.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 2008, 385). We generally agree with Patent Owner’s position, that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider that caching of a packet would include caching the entire packet. We also presume that the caching of only relevant portions of a packet could be construed as caching a packet in the context of monitoring packets passing through a network device, for example, but we are persuaded that the intent of the independent claims is to cache the packets that have yet to be processed when a swapping of rule sets has been instigated, such that those packets, i.e., entire packets, can be processed under the new rule set. As such, we agree with Patent Owner that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “caching the one or more packets” to mean “caching the one or more entire packets.” the claim limitation of “caching the one or more packets” to mean “caching one or more entire packets,” in the context of the ’572 Patent. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, it remains unclear what Patent Owner means by “full versions of the packets,” such that we are not persuaded that such terminology should be introduced into the construction. See Dec. to Inst. 8, 21.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“to its temporal aspect of when caching of packets occurs, i.e., its claim construction that such caching occurs during a swapping of rule sets. As discussed above in Section II.B, we are not persuaded that the limitation “caching the one or more packets” requires that the caching must occur only while the rule sets are swapped. We are persuaded, however, that Roese, Huima and Hayter teach, as proposed by Petitioner, the caching of at least some portion of a packet while rule sets are being swapped. As discussed above, we are persuaded that Roese teaches that when the rapid response identifier signal is received, the response system initiates the process of configuring the forwarding engine with the one or more policies and/or PERs, and Huima teaches that in response to receiving a signal to change the rule set, packet processing pauses. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 47, 52; Ex. 1006 ¶ 31. We agree with Petitioner’s assertion that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a network device should pause the processing of any pending packets and any incoming packets that arrive after the instruction to change the rule set but before the change is completed, in view of Roese and Huima. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171). Further, we continue to be persuaded that Hayter teaches using a packet processor with an integrated cache to store at least portions of packets in the L2 cache, and we are persuaded that such storage would occur while awaiting processing to begin again. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1007 1:40–48, 3:53–59, 6:3–26, 24:34– 36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 176). We are persuaded that this teaches or suggests that any caching of packets, or portions thereof, would occur in the period between when a signal is received to change rule sets and when processing of packets” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,511,572 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,511,572 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 15, 2024 · IPR2022-01525 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–20 are anticipated by IPUG; claims 5 and 15 are obvious over IPUG; additional Altman-based grounds also apply.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Claim 1 recites that, based on comparing flow identification data with a list of identification data, a packet associated with a match is decrypted and a “corresponding action” is taken on the decrypted packet associated a result of a match, the claim does not limit the action itself, i.e., any action is a “corresponding action” as long as that action is “associated with the match [of the] data on the list.” Id. at 18:13–16. Both parties agree that the examples of such actions in the Specification are exemplary and not limiting. See, e.g., PO Resp. 11 (“[Patent Owner] did not (and does not) attempt to limit the ‘corresponding action’ to any particular action or actions.”). The ’526 patent explicitly describes “blocking” a communication as an “action.” Id. at 6:61–66. As “allowing” a packet is the opposite of “blocking” a packet, in the context of the ’526 patent, “allowing” a packet also constitutes an “action.” Nevertheless, Patent Owner attempts to exclude allowing a packet from the scope of the claimed corresponding action by arguing that the differentiation between claim elements requires construing “performing a corresponding action” to mean more than simply allowing the packets. PO Resp. 10–11 (citing Prelim. Resp. 2, 23–24); PO Sur-reply 5–7. Patent Owner states that other claim limitations, e.g., “comparing the identified flow data with the list of the identification data” (step 1[e]), are recited separately from “performing a corresponding action on each packet of the encrypted communication flow associated with the match data on the list.” PO Sur-reply 7. Patent Owner argues that, for this reason, a construction of “performing a corresponding action” in step 1[f] that does not require some action, other than re-encrypting and transmitting the packets, renders the limitations superfluous. Id. (arguing that different claim terms are presumed to have different scope, citing CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). result. In the ’526 patent claims, the action taken on a packet in step 1[f], e.g., blocking or allowing and logging a communication as discussed in the patent, or merely allowing a communication (the opposite of blocking a communication), is an action on a decrypted packet that corresponds to a “packet of the encrypted communication flow associated with the match with data of the list” (step 1[e]). As Patent Owner acknowledges, the claims do not limit those actions. Thus, the comparing of step 1[e] and the action of allowing the transmission taken in step 1[f] are of different scope. Similarly (and consistent with Patent Owner’s analysis), the further steps of re-encrypting and transmitting the packet in step 1[g] are taken “after performing the corresponding action,” e.g., after allowing the packet, and are presumed to be of different scope from the allowing action in step 1[f]. Ex. 1001, 18:17. Re-encrypting and transmitting a packet that was previously decrypted as matched against flow identification criteria and determined to meet criteria allowing the packet to be transmitted without some other action, are not superfluous steps. Thus, as used in the claims of the ’526 patent, we determine that a “corresponding action” includes any action, including the action of allowing a further transmission of a packet, without further action.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s emphasis on indexing is misplaced. In Acceleration Bay, the court affirmed the Board’s findings that the subject reference (Lin) was not meaningfully indexed because the website allowed a user to view a list of technical reports indexed only by author or year and its advanced search form was not reliable. Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 773–74. In Blue Calypso, the court noted that there was no evidence a party could navigate from a university’s website concerning common subject matter to the reference itself, i.e., the personal webpage of Ratsimor. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1350. The facts of Acceleration Bay and Blue Calypso are distinguished from the present circumstances where Cisco’s networking products were well known to persons of ordinary skill and the reference is a page on Cisco’s own website. Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Voter Verified, the court addressed an article (Benson) posted to an on-line publication (Risks Digest) concerning the claimed subject matter (risks of computer automation), noting that Risks Digest was a prominent forum for discussing such technologies (over 100 articles relating to electronic on-line voting). Voter Verified¸ 698 F.3d at 1380–81. The article’s publication on a site interested persons of ordinary skill would have recognized as important “overcame the absence of evidence that the website at which the article was located was indexed and thereby findable by an internet search engine.” See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1349 (discussing Voter Verified); Voter Verified¸ 698 F.3d at 1380–81. In Voter Verified the court stated: The Risks Digest website was undisputedly open to any internet user by the critical date. Whether or not the website itself had been indexed by 1999 (through search engines or otherwise), the uncontested evidence indicates that a person of ordinary skill interested in electronic voting would have been independently aware of the Risks Digest as a prominent forum for discussing such technologies. And upon accessing the Risks Digest website, such an interested researcher would have found the Benson article using that website’s own search functions and applying reasonable diligence. In short, the Benson article was publicly available by the critical date and therefore qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” under § 102(b). Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1381. Dr. Prakash testified that a person of ordinary skill would have looked for product manuals and product descriptions concerning the relevant subject matter from other vendors in addition to Cisco, including BlueCoat, Sophos, Trend Micro, and Palo Alto Networks. Ex. 1002, Prakash Decl. ¶ 129. Guide provides instructions for setting up, administering, and monitoring the IronPort Web Security appliance.” Ex. 1008, 27. Where a document’s “purpose is ‘dialogue with the intended audience,’ that purpose indicates public accessibility.” Valve, 8 F.4th at 1374 (quoting Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The IPUG document bears the date of November, 2010, on its title page, as well as a copyright date of 2010. Ex. 1008, 1–2; Ex. 1010, 18–19. Although Patent Owner argues the copyright date on the document is hearsay, we do not rely solely on the reference’s copyright notice. The Wayback Machine indicates IPUG was archived before the July 24, 2017 filing date of the provisional application from which the ’526 patent claims priority. Ex. 1001 (code 60), 1:6–9; Ex. 1010, Frank-White Decl. (Ex. A), 5 (Wayback Archive Page of Dec. 29, 2103 identifying IPUG as available on Cisco’s website as of Dec. 29, 2013), 6, 8 (Wayback Archive Page listing IPUG available on Cisco’s website on March 1, 2017), 11–12 (Wayback Archive Page of March 9, 2010 identifying IPUG product).” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Patent Owner’s argument that the NMC drops the traffic after analysis and never re-encrypts is unavailing, as further evidenced by Dr. Goodrich’s deposition testimony. Altman’s NMC does not function to re-encrypt and transmit traffic, but instead uses unencrypted data from the SIA to determine whether to instruct the SIA, which functions as the Man-In-The-Middle, to block or re-encrypt and transmit packets. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 31–33; Ex. 1014, Goodrich Tr. 42:18–22 (agreeing that Altman does not describe the NMC itself as accepting or processing encrypted communications), 38:12–15 (agreeing that the SIA responds to instructions from the NMC). sufficiently that Altman at least suggests re-encrypting the decrypted traffic after performing the corresponding action as recited in claim limitations 1[f] and 1[g]. Dec. to Inst. 49–50. As discussed below, having reviewed the arguments and evidence of record, we are also persuaded that a skilled artisan would reasonably understand or infer limitation 1[g] from Altman’s disclosure. See Dayco Prods., 329 F.3d at 1368 (stating that “the dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the prior art reference’s teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference”). Patent Owner’s citation to Exhibit 1007 (Netronome) as “showing a similar out-of-band9 analysis” informs our understanding of what a person of ordinary skill would reasonably understand or infer from Altman. PO Resp. 47; Ex. 1005 ¶ 12. Netronome, incorporated into Altman by reference, discloses an embodiment for plaintext inspection of SSL-encrypted flows, using a proxy to examine and inspect the SSL-encrypted content before entering or exiting an enterprise. Ex. 1007, 2; Ex. 1005 ¶ 12. In one Netronome embodiment, each individual session terminates on the SSL inspector, but TCP connections are retained end-to-end. Ex. 1007, 6. Terminating and re-originating SSL allows the appliance to obtain plaintext in the encrypted signal that is sent to an adjacent security appliance in a regenerated TCP stream; the data remains encrypted on both the connection 9 Neither the ’526 patent nor Altman uses the term “out of band.” Ex. 1014, Goodrich Tr. 35:19–25. As to Altman, Dr. Goodrich appears to be referring to copies of data flows decrypted by the SIA and received by the NMC as “out of band” content. Id. at 46:11–16 (noting that the NMC is never disclosed as processing flows where it would be sending packets back to a destination); see also id. at 36:3–22. server. Ex. 1007, 6. Petitioner’s Altman-based challenges do not rely on Netronome,” slip op. at 56
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“The Petition asserts that IPUG discloses elements 1[f] and 1[g] because IPUG discloses that when encrypted data in an HTTPS connection are received, the appliance (1) decrypts the received encrypted data, if the URL category (the claimed “identified flow identification data”) matches the data in the Decryption Policies, (2) applies the Access Policies to the decrypted plaintext traffic, (3) if the Access Policies allow the traffic, intended destination. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008, 257, 268–69; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 224–229, 232–233).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,284,526 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,284,526
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.