- PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01503 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–26 and all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was unpatentable over Rosener, Dua, Price, and Nakagawa.
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) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1‒26 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the Kyriakakis Declaration, Petitioner alleges a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in . . . an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in wireless communications across short-distance or local-area networks.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts construction is unnecessary and does not propose any term for construction. Pet. 9–10 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be the controversy.”)). On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelNot reached
“F. Collateral Estoppel Relying on the final written decisions that have been issued in IPR2021-00297, IPR2021-00381, and IPR2021-00305 (Exs. 1011–1013), Petitioner asserts that “while unnecessary to find the challenged claims unpatentable, Patent Owner is collaterally estopped from disputing that the cited prior art teaches the limitations” that the Board found the references to showing, without application of collateral estoppel, is sufficient at this stage of the proceeding, we do not reach the collateral estoppel arguments. However, we do note that, unlike MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which Petitioner relies on, this case involves different patents. Also, different parties and different prior art combinations are asserted. See Pet. 10–12. We question, but do not decide, how collateral estoppel applies here and leave the issue, if it becomes relevant, to trial. IV. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments of record, we determine” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,757,498 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01561 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–14 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds, and institution would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“In claim 1, “server” first appears in limitation 1b’s recitation of “a server.” Ex. 1001, 21:27–28. Every subsequent mention of “server” in claim 1 recites “the server.” Id. at 21:37, 21:40, 21:48, 21:51, 21:53, 21:60. Thus, grammatically, each time claim 1 recites “the server,” it refers back to the same “server” as in all previous recitations. Accordingly, claim 1’s plain meaning refers to the same server each and every time it recites “server.” See Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 2778774 *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023) (explaining claim language reciting element with definite article refers to same element previously recited) (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Harari v. Lee, 655 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Neither party argues that any reason exists to construe claim 1’s recitations of “a server” and “the server” differently from their plain meanings. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. We construe every one of claim 1’s recitations of “server” as referring to the same server (the “same-server requirement”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier. As discussed above in Section II.B, we construe claim 1’s recitations of “the server” as all limited to the same server. Thus, as Petitioner contemplated, “the server” recited in limitation 1i is “limited to the same server as in antecedent [limitations 1e–1f].” Pet. 30. Petitioner inadequately supports its position that “Fletchall teaches that also.” Id. at 30–31. Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s explanations do not persuasively support their position that Fletchall teaches product database (121) and payment server (130) are the same server.4 Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212. For example, the observation that product database (121) and payment server (130) are part of system (100) and can communicate with one another via computer network (120) does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 210–212; Prelim. Resp. 24. As Patent Owner 4 Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Shamos have some other basis for contending that Fletchall teaches using the same server in performing the actions recited in limitations 1f and 1i, they do not support that view with sufficiently persuasive evidence or explanation. argues, following Petitioner’s reasoning would lead to the untenable conclusion that any two components of system (100) that can communicate with one another via computer network (120), including mobile device (104) and product database (121), would be part of the same server. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s contentions unpersuasive. We also find unavailing Petitioner’s and Dr. Shamos’s observation that “Fletchall teaches that the product database 121 can be hosted on a merchant server . . . and be part of the common system 100 that includes payment server 130.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 211. Hosting product database (121) on a merchant server does not make product database (121) and payment server (130) part of the same server. Nor does including product database (121) and payment server (130) within system (100).” slip op. at 23
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“functions (VTSAs) of the server 111, the server 130, and merchant server hosting the product database 121 into the same server.” Pet. 41. As explained above in Sections II.C.3.a–c, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability of either of challenged independent claims 1 and 10 or any of challenged dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, 9, and 11–14. Considering this, to the extent Petitioner’s arguments and evidence may demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claim 5 as allegedly obvious over Fletchall and Xavier, we do not find that instituting inter partes review would use the Board’s or the parties’ resources efficiently. See 35 U.S.C. 316(b).” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - PTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01563 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–14 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 would have been obvious over Yong and Xavier.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1‒14 based on the ground set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Weighing the arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314 of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that Yong qualifies as prior art. Hulu at 13. As Petitioner asserts, the KIPO logo and the multiple instances of publication number 10-2007-0087811 on Yong’s first page provide some evidence of authenticity. Ex. 1009, 1; Reply to Prelim. Resp. 3. Additionally, KIPO Yong tends to show that Yong constitutes an authentic version of Korean Publication No. 10-2007-0087811. Yong’s and KIPO Yong’s Figures appear substantially the same. Compare Ex. 1009, 42–48, with Ex. 2001, 28–33. Additionally, the content starting on page 2 of Yong, where Patent Owner contends “claims appear to be present,” closely resembles the content starting on page 11 of KIPO Yong, which Patent Owner posits “may be claims.” Prelim. Resp. 22, 29; Ex. 1009, 2–30; Ex. 2001, 11–27. Consistent with Patent Owner’s observations, these portions of Yong and KIPO Yong appear to present claims. Specifically, these sections of Yong and KIPO Yong each appear to present exactly 140 claims. Ex. 1009, 2–30; Ex. 2001, 11–27. These sections share a number of other similarities, also. For example, in both Yong and KIPO Yong, in the midst of Korean characters, what appears to be claim 69 recites “POS.” Ex. 1009, 16; Ex. 2001, 19. Similar commonalities appear numerous places within these portions of Yong and KIPO Yong. Ex. 1009, 2–30; Ex. 2001, 11–27. The similarities between Yong and KIPO Yong tend to show that Yong is an authentic version of Korean Publication No. 10-2007-0087811 and has the same substantive content as KIPO Yong, just formatted and arranged differently. This is not significantly undermined by Patent Owner’s observations about certain differences between the documents, especially in the absence of a translation of KIPO Yong, which would have facilitated comparing the documents’ content. Indeed, considering Patent Owner’s omission of a translation of KIPO Yong, Patent Owner’s complaints of prejudice and “Petitioner’s hide-the-ball tactics” ring hollow. Prelim. Sur-reply 2, 5. Although we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not yet met the requirements of Rule 42.63(b) for the translation of Yong, we do not find it warranted to deny institution on this basis. Instead, we treat Patent’s Owner’s pre-institution arguments that Petitioner fails to comply with Rule 42.63(b) as evidentiary objections. If Patent Owner wishes to preserve its objections, Patent Owner must formally object to Petitioner’s evidence after institution of inter partes review by this Decision.” slip op. at 16
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, Petitioner filed four petitions challenging the ’435 patent on the same day, including this proceeding, IPR2022-01563, as well as IPR2022-01528, IPR2022-01561, and IPR2022-01564. In this proceeding, IPR2022-01563, and in IPR2022-01561 and IPR2022-01564, Petitioner challenges claims 1–14 of the ’435 patent over various prior art grounds. Pet. 11; Not. 2. In IPR2022-01528, Petitioner challenges claims 15–19 of the ’435 patent over various prior art grounds. Not. 2. Pursuant to the Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“TPG”),3 Petitioner’s Notice provides a ranking of the four petitions in the order in which Petitioner wishes the Board to consider them on the merits and a succinct explanation of the differences between the Petitions. See TPG 59–60; Not. 1–5. Petitioner ranks the instant Petition as “3,” the petition in IPR2022-01528 as “1,” the petition in IPR2022-01561 as “2,” and the petition in IPR2022-01564 as “4.” Not. 2–5. Petitioner, however, contends that “all four Petitions merit institution” because “[a]ll four Petitions present significant material differences which are not redundant and which demonstrate different substantive bases for rendering obvious or for showing anticipation of each of the challenged claims of the ’435 Patent,” and “[d]ue to word count limitations, Petitioner 3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. was not able to present all these grounds in a single petition.” Id. at 1, 3. Petitioner elaborates that 1) the claims of the ’435 Patent comprise over 1,500 words, such that to cover a plurality of grounds in one petition covering all the claims would use at least twenty percent of the 14,000-word petition limit; and 2) Patent Owner has asserted 15 of the 19 claims of the patent in the pending district court litigation (see Ex. 1026). Id. at 2. Patent Owner argues that “the panel should, at most, address the -01528 petition on the merits, as petitioner requested, and discretionarily deny the other three petitions under § 314(a).” Prelim. Resp. 3–4. Regarding the ’435 patent’s claims’ length, Patent Owner argues that “the ’435 Patent claims is indicative of the quality of examination, rather than an excuse for the piling on that Petitioner exhibits in these challenges.” Id. at 6. Under the circumstances presented, where Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s observation that the ’435 patent has very long claims, we conclude it is not unreasonable for Petitioner to file multiple petitions. In our view, even if it were accurate, Patent Owner’s argument that the claims’ “narrowness” reflects quality examination does not detract from Petitioner’s argument that the length of the claims warrants more than one petition. Prelim. Resp. 6.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“3. Discussion In asserting obviousness of claims 1–14 over Yong and Xavier, Petitioner argues that Yong discloses many of the challenged claims’ limitations. Pet. 13–43. For example, Petitioner relies primarily on Yong as allegedly disclosing claim 1’s limitations. Id. at 13–26. Petitioner relies on Xavier as “teach[ing] the use of a session between a mobile phone and se[r]ver in a self-checkout system.” Id. at 15. Petitioner argues that “[h]aving reviewed Xavier, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to add the session handling of Xavier to Yong.” Id. According to Petitioner, “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that a session manager would have been necessary to manage the communications between the mobile communication terminal 100 and the store POS server 200, the commercial transaction server 400 and the payment server 500.” Id. At this stage, aside from the arguments discussed above in Section II.C.1 that we should not consider Yong as prior art, Patent Owner does not dispute the merits of Petitioner’s challenge to claims 1–14. Having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing that claims 1–14 would have been obvious over Yong and Xavier. Pet. 1–43.” slip op. at 24
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - PTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01528 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 15–19 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Yong anticipates claim 15.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 15‒19 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s parallel filing of four petitions warrants denying all four petitions. Prelim. Resp. 7 (“Petitioner’s abuse of process in filing four petitions justifies discretionary denial of all of the petitions.”). Accordingly, given that Petitioner ranks the instant Petition “1,” we decline to deny institution in this proceeding. Additionally, under the circumstances presented, where Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s observation that the ’435 patent has very long claims, we conclude it is not unreasonable for Petitioner to file multiple petitions. In our view, even if it were accurate, Patent Owner’s argument that the claims’ “narrowness” reflects quality examination does not detract from Petitioner’s argument that the length of the claims warrants more than one petition. Prelim. Resp. 6.” slip op. at 33
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Weighing the arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314 of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that Yong qualifies as prior art. Hulu at 13. As Petitioner asserts, the KIPO logo and the multiple instances of publication number 10-2007-0087811 on Yong’s first page provide some evidence of authenticity. Ex. 1009, 1; Reply to Prelim. Resp. 3.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner contends that [a] person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the claimed priority date would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field or equivalent coursework or experience, and one to two years of experience with mobile device applications and retail POS systems. (Shamos ¶ 34.) More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. (Id.) Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 18. For purposes of deciding whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the ’435 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - PTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Keith anticipates at least claims 1 and 10.
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) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1‒14 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Under the circumstances presented, where the priority date of the challenged claims is disputed, we conclude it is not unreasonable for Petitioner to present separate challenges, one of which relies on references that are prior art only if the challenged claims are not entitled to Patent Owner’s claimed priority date, which has yet to be finally determined. See TPG 59 (stating that “a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references” can be a potential reason for the Board to institute trial on multiple petitions challenging the same patent). Thus, on the present record, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this Petition on the basis of Petitioner filing multiple petitions.” slip op. at 46
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field or equivalent coursework or experience, and one to two years of experience with mobile device applications and retail POS systems,” also noting that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 18. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proffered level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’435 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We determine that an express construction of this or any other claim term is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - 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 - Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground; the Board found the prior art failed to establish key limitations and rejected the enablement and indefiniteness challenges.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In reply, Petitioner argues that the ’764 patent’s control system is not complex as there are no detailed algorithms, logic, or software. Pet. Reply 4. Instead, the control system merely raises or lowers power of the pumps in accordance with the demand HHP of the job design. Id. (citing Ex. 1036, 97:15–98:18, 98:21–99:25, 100:1–101:25, 102:2–7, 115:4–9, 115:24–116:4, 116:17–22; Ex. 1001, 5:2–6, 6:36–7:7, 10:4–64). According to Petitioner, this “rudimentary control concept” does not necessitate the higher skill level proposed by Patent Owner. Id. Petitioner further notes that Dr. Adnan testifies that “a mechanical engineer who has worked in the industry developing programming and control systems could fall within this definition,” and the person of ordinary skill in the art “is ‘just a specifier.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 2003 ¶ 22; Ex. 1036, 161:21–164:18). Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’764 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. 20–21. 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 patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In its Reply, Petitioner argues that the maximum power output value 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 2–3 (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 neededDecided for patent owner
“3. 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 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 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,815,764 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,815,764 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01239 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 12–14, 17, and 18 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1‒5, 12– 14, 17, and 18 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payments,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–35).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“agreed to construe the claim term “payment gateway” as a “server or collection of servers for settling a payment.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1016, 2). Petitioner further contends that the parties are disputing the constructions of the claim terms “e-purse,” e-purse applet,” and “application” in the District Court Case, but the differences between the proposed construction need not be resolved for this proceeding because its asserted grounds of unpatentability satisfy both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Id. at 9–10. Patent Owner argues that, for the purposes of its Preliminary Response only, claim construction is not required to resolve any issues. Prelim, Resp. 4. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“In view of these teachings, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Jogu’s balance check in Laracey’s mobile device because this modification would have achieved the same benefits in Laracey that the balance check provides in Jogu. Id. at 40– 41 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Jogu’s balance check ensures that a user is informed of insufficient funds before proceeding with a transaction that will ultimately fail, which provides the benefit producing successful transactions and avoids the need to resolve an insufficient funds issue. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–121). In addition, Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that Jogu’s balance check process is particularly well-suited to Laracey’s system because Laracey expressly provides alternative account options for the user to select in the event an e-purse has insufficient funds.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–121). Petitioner asserts that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination because it would have required only minor programming that was well within the ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,600,046 - Apple Inc. v. Shenzhen Rfcyber Asset Management, LLPInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01240 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that Hayaashi and Prisma rendered the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently that the proposed combination of Hayaashi and Prisma would incorporate Prisma’s JCVM. See id. at 15–19. Instead, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have simply needed to modify Hayaashi’s smart IC card chip 171 to incorporate Prisma’s core smart card elements, including CALC/OS and support for third-party e-purse applets.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–167). More specifically, Petitioner provides an annotated diagram, reproduced below, to identify the smart card components from Prisma to be incorporated into Hayaashi’s smart IC card chip 171. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1005, 9). In this annotated diagram, Petitioner adds red borders to the three boxes labeled “e-purse,” “CALC,” and “OS,”5 thereby 5 “CALC” is Prisma’s Card and Application LifeCycle manager, and “OS” is the card’s operating system. Ex. 1005, 6, 9. Hayaashi. As such, Petitioner does not specify Prisma’s JCVM as component that is incorporated into Hayaashi. To the extent Petitioner’s reference to “support for third-party e-purse applets” is meant to include Prisma’s JCVM, such a broad statement that fails to specifically mention Prisma’s JCVM lacks sufficient specificity to suggest that it would have been obvious to modify Hayaashi to include Prisma’s JCVM. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). For these reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to incorporate Prisma’s JCVM into Hayaashi.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“purse applet and provides a response the e-purse applet is configured to expect” as claimed because the JCVM ensures that an applet operates as expected and that the applet’s requests are handled as the applet expects regardless of the underlying hardware platform. Ex. 1003 ¶ 178. This testimony, however, is entitled to little weight because Mr. Smith fails to provide the underlying basis for his opinion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail). The assertion that “the JCVM ensures that an applet operates as expected” is a conclusory statement not supported sufficiently by any objective evidence or analysis. Accordingly, we do not find Mr. Smith’s testimony of this point persuasive. Moreover, neither the Petition nor Mr. Smith explains sufficiently how Hayaashi or Prisma disclose providing an e-purse applet that the JCVM would interact with in the manner claimed. For the above reasons, we determine Petitioner has not met its burden” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,118,218 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–11 based on the § 103 ground over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’724 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–11) of the ’724 patent, based on the ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that it “utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art,” but only for its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 9. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306; New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 543 F.3d 710, 718 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Patent claims are awarded priority on a claim-by-claim basis based on the disclosure in the priority applications.”). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlierfiled application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. Nor could the claimed subject matter have been “envisioned” from the earlier disclosure to establish written description support. Goeddel v. Sugano, 617 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We agree with Petitioner that, on this record, there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. Patent Owner identifies the following disclosure from the ’218 patent (the patent that issued from the ’653 application) as supporting limitation [1(j)]: According to one embodiment, a smart card has a preloaded smart card operation system that provides security framework to control the access to the Smart card (e.g., an installation of external applications into the smart card). In order to manage the life cycle of an external application, a card manager module is configured by using the smart card security framework. For instance, a Java based smart card, SmartMX, is preloaded with an operating system JCOP 4.1. The Global Platform 2.1 installed on the SmartMX performs the card manager functionality. Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. Patent Owner argues that “this description is substantively identical to that on which Apple relies for disclosure of the “emulator device” and “replace out of the emulator device . . . replacing out of the emulator device . . .” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26. Patent Owner contends that “Apple relies on Buhot’s discussion of an ‘operating system 314 (running on processor 400) for the ‘emulator device’ limitation (Pet. at 31), and relies on Zhu’s alleged teachings regarding a ‘smart card manager . . . which governs the process of loading and unloading applications out of an emulator’ for the ‘replace out of the emulator device . . . replacing out of the emulator device’ limitations.” Id. (citing Pet. 43). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “cannot argue with a straight face that its proposed combination discloses” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,018,724
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.