• Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. v. P2i Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Cohen and Legein or Francesch and Legein; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’087 patent in June 20154 “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29); PO Resp. 13 (Patent Owner stating that it “does not dispute this characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also PO Sur-reply 1–2 (noting both parties’ agreement on the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “On the fully developed trial record, we determine that no claims need an express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Because of Patent Owner’s shifting definitions of the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan, it is unclear on the complete record what precise definition Patent Owner and Dr. Senkevitch are applying when arguing the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 40, 52–55, 60, 68, 74, 76, 77, 80–86, 89, 91, 94, 95, 100, 102–105, 108, 110, 111, 113–116, 118–120, 122, 124, 127–134. We, therefore, give Dr. Senkevitch’s testimony regarding the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art minimal weight, which leaves us with Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported arguments regarding the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13. Moreover, as Petitioner correctly points out, the ʼ087 patent expressly teaches that the precise conditions for forming a protective polymeric coating “will vary depending upon factors such as, without limitation, the nature of the monomer compound, the crosslinking agent, the substrate, as well as the desired properties of the coating” and that such “conditions can be determined using routine methods.” Ex. 1001 15:1–15:5 (emphasis added); Pet. Reply 17. Where the patent itself leaves to the judgment of an ordinarily skilled artisan the assessment of these factors to ascertain suitable conditions for forming the protective coating, we find persuasive Petitioner’s view that it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to ascertain such suitable conditions.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claims of the ʼ087 patent recite obtaining the protective cross-linked polymeric coating “by exposing the device or component to a plasma,” the field of endeavor analysis in an analogous art inquiry does not exclusively turn on the claims at issue, but rather takes account of the entirety of a patent’s disclosure. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the PTO must show adequate support for its findings on the scope of the field of endeavor in the application’s written description and claims” (emphasis added)); In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting an argument that the field of endeavor was limited to a claimed “Internet terminal” when “the specification describes various communication media, including facsimile machines and email, as related to the invention.”). This is significant here because the ʼ087 patent discloses that “[t]he … invention relates to protective coatings” and specifically “relates to protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof, and methods of forming such coatings.” Ex. 1001, 1:14–17. Based on this disclosure, we find that the ʼ087 patent’s field of endeavor relates to “protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof” broadly, not just those formed on such devices or components via a plasma polymerization process as asserted by Patent Owner. Id. Although Cohen does not explicitly disclose that its crosslinked polymers constitute a “protective coating,” Cohen does disclose that its “copolymerizable mixture can be cast into films” (Ex. 1004, 2:61–62), that the polymerization can “effected in situ,” and that the polymers may be used in “numerous” electrical applications (id. at 5:17–25). Tr. 8:9–10:2, 27:2– 21; see Pet. Reply 5 (explaining how “Cohen described insulating polymers that could be applied as films and be used to protect substrates including cables and electrical coils.” (citing Ex. 1004, 2:60–63, 5:13–25)). These disclosures suggest strongly that Cohen’s crosslinked polymers––if cast into a film or formed in situ on an electrical device or component––would serve as a protective coating on that electrical device or component, even though Cohen does not expressly refer to its crosslinked polymers ipsis verbis as a “protective coating.” Thus, we find that Cohen is within the field of endeavor of the ʼ087 patent.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 11,041,087 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,041,087
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionGranted

    “On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46

  • ExcludeOther

    “We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00073 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under §103: the Board found the asserted combinations taught the limitations, with motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “The claim language, “forming” an “adhesion layer on a back surface,” suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of the claims of the ʼ879 patent does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a preformed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 21–23 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’879 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’879 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Mostafazadeh, could overflow.” PO Resp. 41, 42 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 121). According to Patent Owner, the downward pressure during mounting “could cause adhesive to squeeze out.” Id. at 41. We find that Patent Owner’s argument and the corresponding testimony of Mr. Elenius are speculative and do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness. The overflow issue was recognized and addressed by Mostafazadeh. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Mostafazadeh provides explicitly that its adhesive layer “covers an entire mounting surface 190 of the selected integrated circuit dies 182 and does not extend beyond a boundary of the mounting surface 190.” Ex. 1003, 10:6–9 (emphasis added). Additionally, Mostafazadeh teaches that when “the adhesive layer is rolled on, it is exactly the same size as the mounting surface and is quite even. Thus, when the die is attached to its supporting surface the adhesive does not extend beyond the mounting surface of the die.” Id. at 9:15–18. Further, Mostafazadeh teaches that its process avoids the adhesive jutting around the edges of the die. Id. at 2:26–28. These teachings support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully applying Mostafazadeh’s die attachment method to Ball’s multichip device while avoiding adhesive overflow. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination would fail” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond connections with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 25–28. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,352,879 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,352,879
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00996 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Grounds 1–3; Grounds 4–5 were not reached because those claims were already shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “e) Conclusion on Motivation to Combine Harris and the FBDIMM Standards On this record, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Harris and the FBDIMM standards since Harris states that its memory module may include fully buffered DIMMs (FBDs). Ex. 1023 ¶ 9. We agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Harris’s mention of FBDIMMs as a standard and looked to the FBDIMM Standards for information concerning the voltage values standardized for use in an FBDIMM. Ex. 1027, 83; Ex. 1028, 9. For these reasons and others set forth above, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Harris and the FBDIMM Standards with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 41

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “H. Motion to Exclude Petitioner seeks to exclude materials referenced in three URLs submitted with Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on August 4, 2023. Paper 33 (citing Paper 31, 1 n.2, 24, 26). Because we do not rely on any of these URLs in a manner adverse to Petitioner, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 89

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–30 of the ’918 patent are unpatentable. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that claims 1–30 of the ’918 patent have been shown to be unpatentable;” slip op. at 89

  Patent outcomesUS 11,016,918 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,016,918
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00405 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Harris, the FBDIMM Standards, and Amidi; the Board did not reach the Spiers grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “the combination of Harris and FBDIMM Standards and relies on the Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe (Ex. 1003) in support. Pet. 14–40. For the reasons that follow, we are persuaded that the evidence, including Dr. Wolfe’s testimony, supports Petitioner’s showing and establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and two years working or studying in the field of design or development of memory systems, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and at least three years working in the field.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). Petitioner contends that additional training can substitute for educational or research experience, and vice versa. Id. at 8. Petitioner asserts that such a hypothetical person would have been familiar with the JEDEC industry standards, and knowledgeable about the design and operation of standardized DRAM and SDRAM memory devices and memory modules and how they interacted with a memory controller and other parts of a computer system, including standard communication busses and protocols, such as PCI and SMBus busses and protocols. Id. Petitioner further contends that such “a hypothetical person would also have been familiar with the structure and operation of circuitry used to access and control computer memories, including sophisticated circuits such as ASICs, FPGAs, and CPLDs, and more low-level circuits such as tri-state buffers.” Id. Petitioner further asserts that such “a hypothetical person would further have been familiar with voltage supply requirements of such structures (e.g., memory modules, memory devices, memory controller, and associated access and control circuitry), including voltage conversion and voltage regulation circuitry.” Id. Patent Owner indicates “[f]or the purposes of this [Response], Patent Owner is applying the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” Resp. 2. The evidence that Petitioner presents mostly applies to the educational level and experience of workers in the field, but also touches upon other factors as well, including problems and solutions in the prior art and complexity of the technology. See Pet. 7–8. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the ’054 patent and the prior art of record, and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the open-ended language “at least,” which introduces ambiguity and may encompass skill levels beyond ordinary.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “The District Court’s Claim Construction Order (Ex. 2032) issued after our Institution Decision (Paper 11). Although Petitioner argued in the District Court litigation that the claim preambles were not limiting, Petitioner does not appear to maintain that argument here following the District Court’s determination that the preambles are limiting. Ex. 2032, 35. Since the term is recited in both the preambles and bodies of these claims, there is evidence that the inventors of the ’054 patent intended the term to limit the claim, as the District Court determined. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings,com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Bell Commc’ns Rsch., Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Petitioner’s contention that “memory module” is not limited to “main memory modules . . . designed to connect to the primary memory controller.” See Reply 2. The ’054 patent states In certain embodiments, the device contains a high density Flash memory with a low density DRAM, wherein the DRAM is used as a data buffer for read/write operation. The Flash serves as the main memory. Ex. 1001, 11:3–6 (emphases added). This is the only mention of “main memory” in the ’054 patent. That the Flash memory serves as “main memory” in “certain embodiments” implies that there may be other embodiments in which this is not the case. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the term “memory module” is not limited to “main memory modules . . . designed to connect to the primary memory controller.” We agree with Patent Owner that the “memory module” includes structure to connect with a “host system” including its memory controller. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, code (57), 12:52–59. The claims do not mention a “memory controller,” but they do mention that the “memory module” has an “interface” to connect with a “host system.” Ex. 1001, 38:20–25 (claim 1), 39:63–65 (claim 16), 41:6–8 (claim 24). That the “memory module” has structure for connecting to the host system’s memory controller may thus be implied from the claims. We agree with Petitioner that the District Court’s determination was that the preambles (presumably of claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 16 and 25) are limiting. Ex. 2032, 35. To the extent that the District Court’s determination construed “memory module” to include structure necessary to connect to a memory controller, our construction of “memory module” is consistent.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 11,232,054 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,232,054
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00999 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Harris, the FBDIMM Standards, and Amidi, with Hajeck also supporting Ground 3; Grounds 4 and 5 were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. The prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and two years working or studying in the field of design or development of memory systems, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and at least three years working in the field.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). Petitioner contends that additional training can substitute for educational or research experience, and vice versa. Id. at 8. Petitioner asserts that such a hypothetical person would have been familiar with the JEDEC industry standards, and knowledgeable about the design and operation of standardized DRAM and SDRAM memory devices and memory modules and how they interacted with a memory controller and other parts of a computer system, including standard communication busses and protocols, such as PCI and SMBus busses and protocols. Id. Petitioner further contends that such “a hypothetical person would also have been familiar with the structure and operation of circuitry used to access and control computer memories, including sophisticated circuits such as ASICs, FPGAs, and CPLDs, and more low-level circuits such as tri-state buffers.” Id. Petitioner further asserts that such “a hypothetical person would further have been familiar with voltage supply requirements of such structures (e.g., memory modules, memory devices, memory controller, and associated access and control circuitry), including voltage conversion and voltage regulation circuitry.” Id. Patent Owner indicates “[f]or the purposes of this [Response], Patent Owner is applying the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” Resp. 2. The evidence that Petitioner presents mostly applies to the educational level and experience of workers in the field, but also touches upon other factors as well, including problems and solutions in the prior art and complexity of the technology. See Pet. 7–8. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the ’054 patent and the prior art of record, and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the open-ended language “at least,” which introduces ambiguity and may encompass skill levels beyond ordinary.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “The District Court’s Claim Construction Order (Ex. 2032) issued after our Institution Decision (Paper 11). Although Petitioner argued in the District Court litigation that the claim preambles were not limiting, Petitioner does not appear to maintain that argument here following the District Court’s determination that the preambles are limiting. Ex. 2032, 35. Since the term is recited in both the preambles and bodies of these claims, there is evidence that the inventors of the ’054 patent intended the term to limit the claim, as the District Court determined. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings,com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Bell Commc’ns Rsch., Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the “memory module” includes structure to connect with a “host system” including its memory controller. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, code (57), 12:52–59. The claims do not mention a “memory controller,” but they do mention that the “memory module” has an “interface” to connect with a “host system.” Ex. 1001, 38:20–25 (claim 1), 39:63–65 (claim 16), 41:6–8 (claim 24). That the “memory module” has structure for connecting to the host system’s memory controller may thus be implied from the claims. We agree with Petitioner that the District Court’s determination was that the preambles (presumably of claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 16 and 25) are limiting. Ex. 2032, 35. To the extent that the District Court’s determination construed “memory module” to include structure necessary to connect to a memory controller, our construction of “memory module” is consistent.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “conversion for double-rank DIMMs can be accommodated with a form factor design of approximately about one square inch (both sides of the printed circuit board).” Ex. 1023 ¶ 13. Thus, Harris indicates that the VRM circuitry to generate two regulated voltages can fit within this space. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s evidence shows that each ADP1821 converter package would be about 0.193 by 0.236 inches. Sur-Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1078, 20–23). This means three ADP1821 converters would occupy about 40% of the available space. Patent Owner does not demonstrate that the remaining 60% of available space would have been insufficient to accommodate the additional components required for three voltage converters. Id. at 12–13. In any case, we do not view Harris’s disclosure of “approximately about one square inch” to limit the applicability of its teachings to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In the same paragraph, Harris states that the form factor “may be suitably modified.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 13. Patent Owner further argues that “independent voltage sources for different voltages would require specific control circuitry to delay and more precisely control each voltage source’s ramping rate, adding complexity and cost without commensurate benefits.” Sur-Reply 14 (citing Ex. 2061 ¶ 90). However, Dr. Wolfe states that it is simpler to use multiple regulators for multiple voltages since a single regulator that generates multiple voltages is more complicated than multiple regulators. Ex. 2060, 53:16–54:14, 89:1–21, cited in Reply 14. Dr. Wolfe further indicates that buck converters can be in some applications “extremely small.” Ex. 2060, 89:11–15. Dr. Wolfe further testifies that multiple smaller converters may be less costly than a larger single converter because of component costs, separated spaces available for converters on circuit board, and other “ordinary engineering factors.” Id. at 45:21–46:10. Although Patent Owner may be correct that individual control of multiple voltage regulators would have required additional control circuitry, this does not meaningfully undermine the benefits that Petitioner mentions including permitting power sequencing, independent control of voltages, improved efficiency without generating excess heat or requiring cooling devices, and saving power. Pet. 29–30 (citing id. at 14–19; Ex. 1028, 17–20; Ex. 1026, 2–3, 9; Ex. 1028, 30–32; Ex. 1040, 1, 23–24 (Figs. 22–25); Ex. 1041, 1, 13; Ex. 1048, 3; Ex. 1058, 5; Ex. 1059, 5:23–30; Ex. 1062, 11, 13; Ex. 1064 ¶ 101; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 240, 255). Dr. Wolfe testified that, in at least some circumstances, multiple converters may be less complicated, less costly, and take up less space. Ex. 2060, 45:21–46:10, 89:11–15. Patent Owner’s argument that a single converter generating multiple voltages would be better in some circumstances does not negate that Petitioner’s proposed use of multiple converters for multiple voltages would have been preferred in other circumstances that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Our caselaw is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument does not undermine Petitioner’s showing of a motivation to combine Harris and the FBDIMM Standards.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,232,054 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,232,054
• ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00943 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8 and 14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that: On or before 7/12/2017, [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, in electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately three years of experience or equivalent study in voice-controlled devices in smart home systems. Additional graduate education could 2 Neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to such objective evidence of nonobviousness. in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 18. We adopted this definition for the purposes of the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 4. We again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill as reflected in the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Absent a recitation of order, or an order mandated by grammar or logic, the steps of a method claim are not construed to require a particular order. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Patent Owner argues that the steps of claim 1, a method claim, must be performed in sequential order. PO Resp. 13–16. Without commenting on or conceding Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner contends that “the trial grounds meet this proposed construction.” Pet. Reply 24–25; Tr. 8:25–11:16. Our record does not reflect any indication that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring the sequential ordering of the method steps is not at least encompassed by the correct construction of claim 1. Because of this, and because Petitioner agrees that the arguments in the Petition meet this construction, we accept Patent Owner’s construction as correct for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s showing uses the same sound data to teach the “first sound data” of limitation 1.a and the “second sound data” of limitation 1.c. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s claim 5 describes the determination of a volume threshold based on the volume of the ambient audio signal in which characteristic form(s) (e.g., the name of the user of the media player) are present. Ex. 1006, 13:66–21, 14:28–30. However, the Petition describes using Fu’s “predetermined threshold” in combination with Hart-787’s device, which attenuates audio output of a device upon detecting a user’s utterance intended to gain the attention of the device, in order to “include adjusting the audio output volume of a wirelessly-linked audio-producing device when the voice-controlled device determines that the ambient noise level at the time a Ex. 1004, 2:22–37, 5:61–6:10, 9:18–25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24, 32, 54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89). Petitioner further proposes including a threshold that is advantageously based on the environment in which the device is operating as described in Fu, for example to respond to differing levels of noise at different times of day. Id. at 26, 29–30, 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:42–67, 14:28–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–53, 55, 58, 87, 91, 107–109). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments address the references individually instead of addressing the combination of the teachings proposed in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 8, 13–14; see also Dec. on Inst. 21–22, 23–24, 25–26. The Petition relies upon a combination of elements of Hart-787 with the predetermined threshold as taught in Fu and with establishing such a threshold based on the operating environment of a device as in Rosenberg. Pet. 26–31, 34–41. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s threshold is set at the time of the utterance in Rosenberg’s claim 5 and cites Petitioner’s declarant as “conceding” issues regarding how “Rosenberg’s volume threshold is determined.” PO Resp. 20–21. But this argument and the ostensible concession do not squarely address the proposed combination, which combines Fu’s teaching of an adjustment unit that “compares the volume of the ambient noise received . . . to a predetermined threshold” with Rosenberg’s teaching that such “a threshold may be ‘determined based on the volume of [an] ambient audio signal.’” Pet. 39, 40 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1006, 14:28–30). While Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner has not proposed using a predetermined/pre-set threshold or a previously established threshold based on environmental noise in the combination of Hart-787 with F[u] and Rosenberg” (PO Resp. 46), we find, on the contrary, that the Petition describes a combination based predetermined threshold” and on a threshold “determined according to an environmental noise level.” Pet. 29–30. Thus, we find Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds do not suffer from the issues Patent Owner argues are a consequence of the purported use of the same sound data for the “first sound data” of claim limitation 1.a and for the “second sound data” of claim limitation 1.c. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Fu’s teachings with respect to limitation 1.e’s “transition from a first state having a first volume level to a second state having a second volume level that is less than the first volume level” because these arguments similarly do not address the proposed combination. See PO Resp. 26–30. The Petition cites Hart-787 for attenuating the volume of an audio-producing device when a wake word is issued. Pet. 32–34, 43–44. The Petition cites Fu for adjusting volume of an audio-producing device if the level of ambient noise exceeds a predetermined threshold. Id. at 36–39, 44–45. Thus, even if Fu teaches only increasing the volume of an audio-producing device if the predetermined threshold is exceeded, the Petition relies on the combination of teachings of Hart-787 and Fu, and Patent Owner’s argument that neither reference teaches “decreasing a controllable appliance’s volume output when a previously established volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) does not address the combination proposed. Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner has not proposed modifying Fu to decrease a controllable appliance’s volume output when a volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) similarly does not address the combination proposed in the Petition. We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references. transmitted volume down control signals as the means for attenuating audio output, Petitioner contends that Hart-787 “broadly teaches” that a device transmits control command signals to the audio-producing device, relying on the testimony of its declarant. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 82), 43–44 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:67–2:7, 2:26–27, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). In addition, Petitioner shows that these control signals were well-known in the art and would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, supporting its showing with additional testimony from its declarant. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 10183, 2:39–47, 5:35–38; Ex. 10194 ¶¶ 3, 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 118). We conclude Petitioner’s evidence regarding the showing in Hart-787 is sufficient with respect to this point. Hart-787 describes altering a signal sent to the speaker to attenuate the audio from that speaker. Ex. 1004, 1:67– 2:1. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that using transmitted control signals to do this would have been known to one of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 82, 118. We consider Petitioner’s evidence regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Hart-787’s disclosure to be sufficient for the showing regarding the “causing one or more commands to be automatically issued to the controllable appliance to thereby cause” that appliance to transition to a lower volume level, as required in limitation 1.e. While Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant “concede[s] that Hart- 787 does not disclose or teach how its voice-controlled device decreases the audio output of the controllable appliance,” the cited portion of the” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,930,276 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,930,276
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00805 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–26 are unpatentable: claims 1–26 as obvious over Wise and Woods, claims 1–25 over Wise and Dasan, and claim 26 over Wise, Dasan, and Uppaluru.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing.” Pet. 6–7. Petitioner adds that “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Mr. Lipoff supports this articulation, and Patent Owner makes the same proposal. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 77; PO Resp. 1. Because we find the parties’ agreed proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by Mr. Lipoff’s testimony, we adopt it for this Decision. 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 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “Petitioner does not believe that any express constructions are necessary” to resolve the parties’ dispute, and Patent Owner agrees that “claim construction is unnecessary.” See Pet. 7; PO Resp. 1. On the record before us, we do not find it necessary to construe any term for this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Mr. Occhiogrosso made similarly inconsistent statements on this point on cross-examination. For example, when asked whether the claim requires that the “content-descriptor file be a different file,” Mr. Occhiogrosso responded that “[i]n my opinion, there’s nothing inherent that says it has to be stored in the same physical data file on the same storage medium.” Ex. 1057, 68:11–23. But when asked, “Could the content-descriptor file be one of the web pages that make up a website?” he responded, “In my opinion, no.” Id. at 70:9–13. Notwithstanding such inconsistent statements, we find that, taken as a whole, Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony reflects an opinion contrary to that of Mr. Lipoff, namely the recited “content-descriptor file” must be a file separate and distinct from an HTML web page. The Federal Circuit has “viewed extrinsic evidence in general as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms,” e.g., because expert testimony “is generated at the time of and for the purpose of litigation and thus can suffer from bias that is not present in intrinsic evidence.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. In this instance, although we discern certain (but contrary) positions in the experts’ opinions on this point, the inconsistencies in their cross-examination testimony limit our confidence in those opinions. We accordingly give greater weight to the intrinsic evidence, which more strongly supports Petitioner’s position. We accordingly determine that Petitioner’s showing with respect to this limitation is sufficient.” slip op. at 39

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s reasoning because Petitioner’s “motivation to combine argument is centered on the periodic retrieval of information from an information source (webpage) and not on an information source that is periodically updated,” as the claim recites. PO Resp. 24. Nevertheless, Patent Owner concedes that Petitioner “establishes . . . that the Wise website information sources are periodically updated,” which Petitioner correctly observes “is all that the claim requires.” Id.; Reply 9. Patent Owner reasons that there is no motivation to combine teachings from the two references because “the Wise system alone already provides the most up-to-date and complete information to the user.” PO Resp. 27. But the Federal Circuit has criticized such an argument as “reasoning [that] belies its conclusion”: “[t]hat [two prior art references] address the same problem and that [one of the references] was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and [Federal Circuit] precedent.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoted in Pet. 10– 11). This is the “known-technique” rationale, in which “[t]here is a motivation to combine when a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.” Id. at 1380–1381 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). Implementing periodic updating of information sources as taught by Dasan would be within the skill of an ordinary artisan to implement in Wise’s system. We accordingly determine that Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning, supported by rational underpinning, to effect the combination it proposes and to meet the first aspect of the preamble.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,769,314 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,769,314
• Universal Electronics, Inc. / Gemstar Technology (Qinzhou) Co. Ltd. et al. v. ROKU, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00818 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–10, and 14 are unpatentable over RadioShack; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable over Wouters and Verzulli because the combination did not disclose the claimed combining and installing steps.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touch-stone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ . . . .” Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). A reference is considered “publicly accessible” if it was “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Id. at 1355–56 (citing In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)). Petitioner treats this requirement as having two aspects, namely (1) whether a person of ordinary skill could reasonably have found RemoteCentral.com and (2) whether such a skilled artisan could reasonably have found RadioShack on RemoteCentral.com. Reply 8–13; see also Tr. 33:25–34:8 (Patent Owner asserting that there are two aspects to the analysis on public accessibility: “The first is whether a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have known to arrive at the website containing the prior art reference. The second one is . . . , [a]ssuming the [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have done so, would the [person of ordinary skill in the art], exercising reasonable diligence, have located the prior art reference on the site? And these are separate and distinct requirements, and if you fail one of them, the document is not publicly accessible.”).” slip op. at 27

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “addressed squarely by the principles set forth in Hulu, which addresses the standards at the institution stage and during the trial for evaluating evidence proffered to show asserted art qualifies as a printed publication. Specifically, after a petitioner has presented “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent,” such that trial is instituted, “some limited opportunities exist for the petitioner to present new evidence later.” Hulu at 13–14. These “limited opportunities” include “in a reply to the patent owner response,” provided that the additional evidence is “responsive to the prior briefing” and provided that the additional evidence does not require “completely reopen[ing] the record, by, for example, changing theories after filing a petition.” Id. at 14–15. Although Patent Owner contends that “[t]his is not an example of permissible rebuttal evidence, but rather a belated attempt to fill a gap in the evidence in the Petition,” we disagree. See Sur-reply 6. Rather, the 7 Patent Owner appears to refer incorrectly to Exhibit 1040 instead of Exhibit 1041 when identifying “articles allegedly referring to RemoteCentral.com.” See Sur-reply 5–6. progression within the instant proceeding comports well with the Hulu framework. During the preliminary proceeding, Petitioner came forth with “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that [RadioShack] was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent,” just as Hulu demands. Hulu at 13; Inst. Dec. 23 (“[W]e determine that Petitioner’s showing regarding public accessibility of RadioShack is sufficient under the standard we apply at this stage of the proceeding.”). Patent Owner challenges RadioShack’s status as a printed publication in its Response, just as Hulu contemplates. Hulu at 15; PO Resp. 28–41. And Petitioner submits additional evidence that replies to that challenge without changing its theory that RadioShack qualifies as a printed publication by virtue of its accessibility on the RemoteCentral.com web site and in light of date indicia on RadioShack itself.8 See Hulu at 15–16; Reply 7–13. Moreover, in determining that Petitioner’s additional evidence directed at RemoteCentral.com is properly considered, we are further mindful of the Federal Circuit’s endorsement that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1830–81 (Fed. 8 In its Reply, Petitioner also relies on evidence of publication of RadioShack on Radio Shack’s own public website and on “a third location,” hifi-remote.com. Reply 14. As we discuss below, we determine that the presence of RadioShack on RemoteCentral.com is sufficient to qualify RadioShack as a printed publication. We therefore do not reach the issue of whether presence on either the Radio Shack web site or on hifi-remote.com is an improper new theory raised by Petitioner in its Reply. See Tr. 8:13– 9:23 (Petitioner discussing whether reliance on hifi-remote.com presents a different theory than set forth in the Petition). Cir. 2018); see also Vidstream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., 981 F.3d 1060, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board denied VidStream’s Motion to Exclude, holding that it was appropriate to permit Twitter to respond to VidStream’s challenge [to the status of Bradford as a printed publication] by providing additional evidence to establish the Bradford publication date. We conclude that the Board acted appropriately, for the Board permitted both sides to provide evidence concerning the reference date of the Bradford book, in pursuit of the correct answer.”). We accordingly give due weight to Petitioner’s additional evidence of RadioShack’s accessibility on the RemoteCentral.com web site.” slip op. at 25

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “1 Patent Owner objected to Petitioner’s demonstrative slides 45 and 68 as presenting a new argument that was not previously made with respect to challenged claims 2 and 10. Paper 27; see Paper 26 (Petitioner’s demonstratives), 45, 68. At the oral hearing, we reserved ruling on the objections. Tr. 5:23–6:3. Both slides reproduce the same portions of Exhibits 1002 and 1025, with the statement that “A press and hold for an auto-scan or brand-scan is admitted prior art.” Paper 26, 45, 68. As explained below, we do not reach the predicate position upon which the objections are based. See Tr. 5:8–11 (Petitioner stating that “this Board only needs to resolve this objection if it accepts Roku’s claim construction argument that the claims cover a press and hold of a single button, but that they do not cover pressing multiple buttons to present that argument in the alternative. So, if you reject that argument, you don’t even have to resolve the objection.”). We accordingly dismiss the objections as moot.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with this assessment, and the parties do not specifically advocate for one articulation over the other in this proceeding. See Pet. 8 (Petitioner asserting that “[t]he Challenged Claims are unpatentable under both proposed levels”); PO Resp. 5 (Patent Owner stating its “position that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either proposed level of ordinary skill”). We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed statement of the level of ordinary skill as advanced in the related ITC Investigation. But we note that we would reach the same ultimate conclusion that Petitioner shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that all challenged claims are unpatentable were we to adopt Petitioner’s proposal instead.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,378,875 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,378,875

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.