- Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79
Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,226,090 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.”); Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,798,509 - Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00558 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 and 14 are unpatentable; claims 13, 15, and 16 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted obviousness grounds did not establish all their limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“deliver a true 2500 hp directly to each pump 22.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Dr. Durham provides no persuasive explanation for his bare conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from this disclosure that Coli’s motor has a maximum continuous power output of about 1750 brake horsepower or more. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 203. In particular, he does not discuss how Coli’s described “true 2500 hp” informs a person of ordinary skill in the art that Coli’s motor might be capable of outputting 1750 horsepower or more for any particular minimum amount of time. See id. Thus, on the record presented, Petitioner has not established paragraph 49 of Coli describes a motor that satisfies the requirement of claim 15.” slip op. at 69
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“(iv) Conclusion We conclude Loucks is analogous art to the ’870 patent, because it is” slip op. at 94
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“system, that is outweighed by the cooling functionality achieved by the addition of those components. See In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243–44 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (persons of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to pursue desirable properties of one prior art reference, even at the expense of foregoing a benefit taught by another prior art reference). Dr. Nikolaou testifies that “implement[ing] a cooling system, like the one in Loucks, in Coli’s fracturing operations . . . would require a larger on-site footprint and increased infrastructure . . . similar to the one that Coli specifically warns against.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 95 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39). However, he does not provide any supporting explanation for that conclusion. See id. We find that the heat sink, thermal sensors, and microprocessor of Petitioner’s combination represents far less infrastructure and footprint within Coli’s system than the diesel power machinery (transmission, torque converter, clutch, drive shaft, and hydraulic system) rendered useless by Coli’s conversion to electric power. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 107
Patent outcomesUS 11,136,870 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,136,870 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01331 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 5 is unpatentable over Veneklase and Jonsson; claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 were not shown unpatentable over Kew and Sormunen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that it is too late for Petitioner to file a copy of the infringement contentions and argue that Patent Owner’s position in this Proceeding is inconsistent with its position in that proceeding. Petitioner had ample opportunity to raise its arguments about the infringement contentions well before the oral hearing. PO Resp. to Supp. 2. Patent Owner complied with our mandatory notice provision. Further, we agree with Patent Owner that its position in the infringement contentions is not inconsistent with its position in this proceeding. Paper 3, 1. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to consider the infringement contentions and the new arguments during an oral hearing.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA6”) “for the ’658 Patent would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical and computer engineering or a closely related field; and (2) two or more years of experience in security. EX1001, generally; EX1003, ¶¶49-51.” Pet. 5. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’658 Patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the patent and the cited prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayMotivation foundTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Applicant’s foregoing computer security embodiment, utilizes two distinct communications channels and a random number generator in order to ensure that an authorized user of a computer system is notified that someone or something is seeking access to the computer system with his or her password. Moreover, Applicant’s foregoing invention is very cost effective as it employs substantially “off the shelf” and readily available components. Further, the use of a “secret” password, a “secret” substantially random number, and a “secret” second channel allows for multiple levels of security before access to the computer system is achieved and provides enhanced security over the prior art. Ex. 1005, 7:16–28. We do not agree with Patent Owner that these statements unequivocally support its position that Veneklase’s two-step authentication process is a principle of operation of its system. Rather, the quoted statements indicate that Veneklase’s use of two distinct communication channels and a random number generator are key features of Veneklase’s system that provide multiple levels of security and enhance security of that system. As modified Veneklase’s system still uses two distinct communication channels and a random number generator. Thus, to the extent that Veneklase’s enhanced security measures (i.e. two distinct communication channels and a random number generator) are a principle of operation of Veneklase’s system, the proposed modification does not destroy this principle of operation or render Veneklase’s system inoperable. Moreover, incorporating Jonsson’s teachings related to using an algorithm to create a new password would not destroy the principle of operation of Veneklase’s security system because it only changes how Veneklase accomplishes its goal of preventing unauthorized access to a computer system, rather than defeating its goal of preventing such access. See In re Mouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Further, we do not agree that Plas-Pak (a routine decision11) supports Patent Owner’s contention that the proposed combination impermissibly changes Veneklase’s principle of operation as Patent Owner has not identified differences between the two authentication processes that would be “unlikely to motivate a person of ordinary skill to pursue” the proposed combination. Plas-Plak, 600 F. App'x at 757-59.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“motivation to combine Veneklase and Johnson. PO Resp. 20–21. Petitioner does not propose modifying Veneklase to include Jonsson’s teachings solely because the security of the proposed combination is superior to the security in Veneklase. Rather, Petitioner asserts that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to make such a combination because having only the one password transmitted via the computer system is more efficient and secure.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). The Petition explains how the combination is more efficient in that it requires only a single step which reduces the amount of time required for the authentication process. Id. We also agree with Petitioner’s reasoning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to combine Veneklase and 11 “A routine decision is binding in the case in which it is made, even if it is not designated as precedential or informative, but it is not otherwise binding authority.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Rev. 11) 2 (July 24, 2023), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/20230724_ptab_sop2_r ev11_.pdf. Jonsson because the combination merely uses a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” Pet. 33 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 401). Jonsson discloses a known algorithm and Veneklase discloses a system that is similar to Jonsson’s. In the absence of any evidence that applying Jonsson’s algorithm to Veneklase’s system is beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we agree that “the improvement is [no] more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 6,993,658 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,993,658 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00425 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 5 is unpatentable as obvious over Veneklase and Jonsson; claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 were not shown unpatentable over Kew and Sormunen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (in the context of an inter partes review, applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner states that “all terms should be given their plain meaning.” Pet. 6. Yet, Petitioner proposes claim construction for “cell phone network” and “[n]ot known to the user.” Pet. 9–13.7 As these terms are not in controversy, we do not construe them.” slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that it is too late for Petitioner to file a copy of the infringement contentions and argue that Patent Owner’s position in this Proceeding is inconsistent with its position in that proceeding. Petitioner had ample opportunity to raise its arguments about the infringement contentions well before the oral hearing. PO Resp. to Supp. 2. Patent Owner complied with our mandatory notice provision. Further, we agree with Patent Owner that its position in the infringement contentions is not inconsistent with its position in this proceeding. Paper 3, 1. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to consider the infringement contentions and the new arguments during an oral hearing.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1005, 7:16–28. We do not agree with Patent Owner that these statements unequivocally support its position that Veneklase’s two-step authentication process is a principle of operation of its system. Rather, the quoted statements indicate that Veneklase’s use of two distinct communication channels and a random number generator are key features of Veneklase’s system that provide multiple levels of security and enhance security of that system. As modified Veneklase’s system still uses two distinct communication channels and a random number generator. Thus, to the extent that Veneklase’s enhanced security measures (i.e. two distinct communication channels and a random number generator) are a principle of operation of Veneklase’s system, the proposed modification does not destroy this principle of operation or render Veneklase’s system inoperable. Moreover, incorporating Jonsson’s teachings related to using an algorithm to create a new password would not destroy the principle of operation of Veneklase’s security system because it only changes how Veneklase accomplishes its goal of preventing unauthorized access to a computer system, rather than defeating its goal of preventing such access. See In re Mouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Further, we do not agree that Plas-Pak (a routine decision11) supports Patent Owner’s contention that the proposed combination impermissibly changes Veneklase’s principle of operation as Patent Owner has not identified differences between the two authentication processes that would be “unlikely to motivate a person of ordinary skill to pursue” the proposed combination. Plas-Plak, 600 F. App'x at 757-59.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,993,658 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,993,658 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Colibri Heart Valve LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 11, 2023 · IPR2022-00878 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 55–72, 78–80, 83, and 84 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; Petitioner did not show claim 85 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been a mechanical engineer, medical device engineer, or an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of stent-based prostheses for use in a patient’s heart or vasculature to replace and/or repair a diseased valve, intravascular delivery systems for the delivery of such prostheses, and methods associated with the delivery and implantation of such prostheses in a patient. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1026 ¶ 27). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner[’s] definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 2. 8 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Terms Defined by the ’400 Patent 1. Both parties discuss claim terms (“substantially conical,” “folds,” “biocompatible membrane [that] does not comprise a treated tissue,” “cusp,” “cuff wall,” “frame,” “mobile leaflet layer” or “mobile leaflet,” “proximal,” “non-transverse”, and “plurality of . . . leaflets”) which are defined by the ’400 patent’s explicit definition of these terms or its explicit definition of a related term (e.g., definition of “folding” also defines claim term “folds”). Pet. 26–28; PO Resp. 26–28. Both parties assert that the definitions in the ’400 patent define these claim terms. Id. We agree. For the claim terms defined by the ’400 patent, Patent Owner has acted as its own lexicographer by setting out the definitions of these claims terms in the specification of the ’400 patent. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 10 We note that throughout its claim construction arguments, Patent Owner refers to the claim construction of the word “attach;” however, the claim term at issue is “attached.” We understand Patent Owner to be referring to this claim term and treat Patent Owner’s arguments as if they refer to the claim term “attached.” discussed in Sections D–F below, we construe these terms in accordance with their definitions set forth in the ’400 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“f) Conclusion Re Claim Construction For “Attached” We begin our analysis by reiterating that under the Phillips standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification, the prosecution history, other claims, and even extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, although extrinsic evidence is less significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17. When a patent owner wishes to employ a definition that is different from the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term, it may do so by acting as its own lexicographer setting out the definition of that claim term in the specification of its patent. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. As discussed in Section II.C.1 above, Patent Owner has acted as its own lexicographer and defined numerous claim terms in the ’400 patent. See Ex. 1001, 11:41–13:18. Thus, it is readily apparent that when Patent Owner intended to employ a definition of a claim term that differed from the the ordinary and customary meaning of that claim term, Patent Owner provided such a definition. A person of ordinary skill in the art would infer accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning. Having considered the full record before us including the evidence, testimony, and argument in support of the parties’ positions, we agree with Petitioner that the claim term “attached” should be construed in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning, which the parties agree is “fastened, secured, or joined, directly or indirectly.”12 Pet. Reply 1; PO Resp. 15. We do not find that the context of the ’400 patent further narrows this term such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “attached” to require attachment “at the same location.” Accordingly, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “attached” in considering the challenges set forth in the Petition discussed below.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“testimony, and arguments in support of both parties’ positions, we agree with Petitioner that Melsheimer’s cusps are substantially conical as required by independent claim 55. The definition of “substantially conical” set forth in the ’400 patent does not require that every part of the structure in question resemble a cone. Ex. 1001, 12:47–54. Rather, it requires a structure that “resembles a cone or portion thereof at some point in the practical use of the structure” and a “cross-sectional perimeter or area of the structure in the operationally closed position that decreases moving from the level of the leaflet apposition to the proximal end of the valve.” Id. (emphasis added). Melsheimer discloses receptacles 18 that are cone-shaped. Ex. 1003, Fig. 4A. Although, Melsheimer’s leaflet 16 and receptacle 18 pairs are not entirely cone-shaped, they do still resemble a cone. Further, Melsheimer’s receptacles 18 have the required cross-sectional perimeter. See id. Accordingly, we determine that these pairs (i.e., Melsheimer’s cusps) are “substantially conical” in accordance with the definition set forth in the ’400 patent. Conclusion For Grounds 1–3 Having considered the full record before us including the evidence, testimony, and arguments of both parties, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 55, 56, 58, 59–61, 63, 65, and 66 are anticipated by Melsheimer (Ground 1). We further determine that claims 57, 64, 78, and 79 are unpatentable over Melsheimer alone or in combination with Eberhardt (Ground 2) and that claims 62, 83, and 84 are unpatentable over Melsheimer alone or in combination with Pavcnik (Ground 3).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,737,400 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,737,400 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Memoryweb, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2023 · IPR2022-00221 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable under the stated obviousness grounds; claims 14 and 15 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’658 Patent would have had the following education and experience: (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least one year of experience designing graphical user interfaces for applications such as photo organization systems . . . Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). Patent Owner does not challenge this definition of the level of skill at this time. Prelim. Resp. 45. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The ’658 Patent states, “Application Views–The Application Views utilizes the Application’s ability to associate Digital Tags to Digital Files and display them in customized views such as Uploads, Collections, Slideshow, Location, Timeline, Family Tree, People Profile, and Recipes.” Ex. 1001, 9:18–22. Thus, we understand “application view” to mean a customized display of digital tags or files and we adopt this definition of “application view.” Id. Turning to Patent Owner’s contention that the claim language requires the application view of be separate and distinct relative to other claimed views, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s sweeping statement. Rather, each claim must be considered to determine if the structure of the claim requires a view that is separate and distinct from the application view or if the claim further defines the application view.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed claim construction “allows an infinite number of intervening events.” PO Sur-reply 3. Rather, Petitioner’s position, as supported by Dr. Greenspun’s testimony, is that “ a POSITA would have recognized that the term ‘responsive to’ merely requires that the second event happen ‘subsequent to’ the first event based on a combination of user interaction and software implementation.” Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 2022, 42:21–44:22; Ex. 2024, 108:20–109:12; Ex. 1047 ¶ 7). We credit Dr. Greenspun’s testimony regarding claim construction for “responsive to a click or tap” and adopt this definition as our own. Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 7–11.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“Although, we agree with Patent Owner, that Petitioner does not dispute that in its second combination Okamura’s cluster maps and their associated geographic information would be lost, we do not see how this observation renders the proposed combination untenable. Petitioner has shown how the proposed combination meets limitations [1b]–[1g] of claim 1. Pet. 26–28, 37–56. To the extent that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the Petitioner’s first proposed combination apply to its second proposed combination, those arguments are unconvincing for the reasons discussed above. In particular, we determine that the benefits of “better managing digital content” and an enhanced user experience “by providing ‘a good view of what location is associated with what’” outweigh any loss of geographical information. See Pet. 22–30. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Okamura and Belitz as combined in Petitioner’s second combination would have rendered displaying of first and second location selectable thumbnails as required by limitations [1b]–[1g] obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 10,423,658 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,423,658 - Apple Inc. v. Memoryweb, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 7, 2023 · PGR2022-00006 · APJ Jason M Repko · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 17–44, and 49–59 are unpatentable over A3UM or for lack of written description; claims 13–16 and 45–48 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“2. Analysis A person is not entitled to a patent if their invention was “described in” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioner, A person of ordinary skill in the art in 2011 would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, and (2) at least applications such as photo management systems. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46). In the Institution Decision, we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Inst. Dec. 12. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7. We continue to find that the skill level identified by Petitioner (Pet. 12) is consistent with the record. Thus, we use the same definition here that we used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“e. Conclusion Petitioner provides articulated reasoning, supported by rational” slip op. at 68
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“11. Written Description: Claims 6, 7, 38, and 39 Petitioner asserts that claims 6, 7, 38, and 39 are unpatentable as lacking adequate written-description support. Pet. 91–93. Claim 6 recites, in part, “The method of claim 4, wherein, in the people view, the first name is displayed adjacent to the first digital file associated with the first thumbnail image and the second name is displayed recites similar limitations. See id. at 38:47–50. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and claim 39 depends from claim 38. Id. at 35:63–65 (claim 7), 38:51–53 (claim 39). Petitioner asserts that claims 6 and 38 require that the “people view” includes at least the following: (i) “a first thumbnail image associated with a first person,” (ii) “a first name associated with the first person,” (iii) “a second thumbnail image associated with a second person,” (iv) “a second name associated with the second person,” and (v) a “first digital file associated with the first person.” Pet. 91. Petitioner argues that the ’020 patent lacks written-description support for a people view with these features. Id. at 92 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 315). Under Petitioner’s interpretation, digital files are “plainly distinct”” slip op. at 96
Patent outcomesUS 11,017,020 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,017,020 - Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00102 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 5 and 9 are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b); the Board did not find claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–28 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’459 patent’s description and Dr. Adnan’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary level of skill in the art does not require the high level of specialized knowledge of control systems suggested by Patent Owner. Moreover, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full record, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher is unqualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to have been a fracturing operator. Patent Owner’s proposed definition does not even require experience as a fracturing operator. See PO Resp. 22. Furthermore, Mr. Marscher testifies that he has extensive experience developing pumps for fracturing applications. Ex. 2027, 6:24–8:7. Mr. Marscher also testifies that he has experience with control systems relating to pumps and pumps units. Id. at 212:19–23. This testimony, as well as his declaration and curriculum vitae, show that Mr. Marscher has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher’s qualifications or experience provide reason to discount the weight associated with Mr. Marscher’s testimony.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“is the pump unit’s highest HHP output and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this value is the pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty. Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72, 123–124; Pet. 9– 10; Ex. 1036, 64:17–67:13, 119:17–120:11, 124:7–24, 198:9–200:9, 221:8– 222:15). However, even if Petitioner is correct that the “maximum power output value” is near or equivalent to a pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty, we are still not persuaded that the term “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value,” in conflict with the definition provided in the Specification. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is indefinite. Pet. Reply 3. For the reasons discussed below (see supra § II.I.1), we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the term “maximum intermittent power,” as defined in the Specification, is indefinite. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we maintain our prior construction of “maximum intermittent power” for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“5. Additional Terms We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; see also 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 15
Patent outcomesUS 10,907,459 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,907,459 - Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01033 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 15, and 17–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 16 was not shown unpatentable over Coli, Horikoshi, API Standard, and Stark.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “A/C console” Petitioner asserts that, in a litigation with a third party, Patent Owner” slip op. at 10
- BurdenMixed
“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–12, 15, and 17–22 of the 1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. ’601 patent are unpatentable. It, however, has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the unpatentability of claim 16.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Nexus “In order to accord substantial weight to secondary considerations in an obviousness analysis, ‘the evidence of secondary considerations must have a “nexus” to the claims, i.e., there must be “a legally and factually sufficient connection” between the evidence and the patented invention.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). “The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists . . . .” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A nexus is presumed when “the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373 (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “A finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations,” as “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. at 1373–74 (citing In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Patent Owner argues that its Clean Fleet Generation I product embodies the system recited in independent claim 1. PO Resp. 29–32. Patent Owner asserts that the Clean Fleet Generation I product has “two electric powered ‘frac’ pumps mounted on a trailer and two electric motors each capable of delivering 1750 BHP” and “[t]he trailer also has two VFDs to control and power each electric motor, and the pumps are rated for 14,500 psi.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2034, 38–78; Ex. 2041, 2). Patent Owner asserts that the Clean Fleet Generation I product is powered by turbine generators. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2041, 9; Ex. 2034, 38–78). Patent Owner argues that its Clean Fleet Generation I product embodies independent claims 8 and 22 for the same reasons advanced for claim 1 and, with respect to claim 8, also because the Clean Fleet product includes a motor having a shaft made of steel grade 4340 HT. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 2039, 35; Ex. 2034, 38–78), 37 (citing Ex. 2034, 38–78). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner has not shown that the Clean Fleet product embodies the claims of the ’601 patent because Patent Owner and Mr. Schaaf “provide no analysis for whether or how Clean Fleet practices” the “‘high pressure’ limitation or ‘frequently performing electric motor diagnostics.’” Pet. Reply 23 (citing PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2034, 39–41). Petitioner also notes that “[Patent Owner] points to the same Clean Fleet product for non-obviousness across sixteen patents” and argues that Patent Owner’s reliance on the same evidence for all of these patents is improper because the patents recite “dozens of features” not recited in the ’601 patent, including a heater, a pump down pump, a combustible fuel vaporization system, a gas compression system, switchgear units, a tiebreaker, and a weight monitoring system. Id. at 23–25 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner has not established a nexus between its Clean Fleet Generation I product and the claims of the ’601 patent because Patent Owner has not tied the evidence of secondary considerations to the ’601 patent. Id. at 25–26. Rather, Petitioner asserts, Patent Owner’s evidence is tied to features known in the prior art. Id.” slip op. at 58
Patent outcomesUS 8,789,601 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,789,601
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.