- Teladoc Health, Inc. v. Data Health Partners, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00618 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted obviousness combinations teach compiling provider data without client input to generate a score.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare field as well as 1–2 years of experience with health information technology, including specific experience with computer-based systems for recording, tracking, and analyzing patient health information.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 36). At this time, Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 2. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’812 patent.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We finally consider the disputed limitation “without input from the clients.” Petitioner argues that data inputted by a provider, and not the client, “is without input” from the client. See Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 141). Patent Owner distinguishes between entered data and compiled data. See Prelim. Resp. 19–20 (“[T]he element in claim 16 does not require data entry without input from the patients. Instead, . . . claim 16 recites that ‘instructions are executed by the processor to: . . . compile data’”). Patent Owner thus argues that the negative limitation “without” excludes client input from the compiled data to generate a score, not the entered data as a whole. See id. In other words, both providers and clients may input data, but the score is generated from data collected from the providers, not the clients. We agree with Patent Owner’s position—that the compiled data used to generate a score includes client data received from the providers and excludes (is without) input from the clients—as consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim limitation. This reading gives meaning to the express limitation “without input from the clients.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“the use of a term within the claim [may provide] a firm basis for construing the term”). We next consider whether this interpretation is consistent with the intrinsic evidence.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). slip op. at 6
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In sum, none of Petitioner’s citations to Douglas appear to address compiling data without input from the client to generate a score. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bergeron, does not provide any further explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would compile data without input from the client to generate a score, nor a reason to modify Douglas to do so. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 141–142, 90–91. Instead, Dr. Bergeron merely provides the conclusion mirrored in the Petition. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 141. Finally, Petitioner does not rely on Klotsche, Virginia, or Wager for the disputed limitation “without input from the client.” See Pet. 32 (discussing Klotsche), 33 (discussing Virginia), and 58–59 (discussing Wager). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not established that the asserted art teaches or suggests all of the claim elements and limitations of claim 16. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 16, and dependent claim 17, would have been obvious over Douglas, Klotsche, and Virginia or Douglas, Klotsche, Virginia, and Wager.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,061,812 - PTAB · Sep 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00616 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–17, 19, and 20 on all asserted grounds, 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
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). We may institute inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition and the evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 4–17, 19, and 20 of the ’554 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare field as well as 1–2 years of experience with health information technology, including specific 3 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. experience with computer-based systems for recording, tracking, and analyzing patient health information.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 36). At this time, Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 2. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we determine Petitioner’s proposed level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’554 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “[n]one of the claim terms of the Challenged Claims require an explicit construction to resolve the current grounds.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner[] that, for purposes of this Preliminary Response only, all terms of the ’554 patent have their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 10. At this stage of the proceeding and based on the current record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because no such construction is necessary to determine whether to institute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent the parties’ arguments implicate claim construction, these are discussed below with reference to limitation 1[b].4” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Fifth, Patent Owner argues that “Douglas teaches away from Wager by teaching against accomplishing its goals in an in-person [clinical] setting like the one to which Wager is directed.” Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4, 5, 11, 13). Patent Owner argues that Douglas’s system is designed for remote monitoring of patients to avoid the costs and inconvenience of in-person programs. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 1:29–35, 2:5–7). On this record, we do not agree that Douglas teaches away from a combination with Wager’s interface simply because the interfaces may be used in different environments. Moreover, Douglas teaches alternatives to remote monitoring, including in-person visits. See Ex. 1002, 11:1–2 (“The system also accepts additional patient data obtained during office visits.”); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from . . . alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”).” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,144,554 - PTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00367 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Horie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’310 patent has an application filing date of March 11, 2005, we apply the pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability. See Ex. 1001, code (22). 2 Japanese Patent Application 2002-133100, published May 10, 2002 (Ex. 1009). All citations are to the Petitioner-provided English translation. Ex. 1006. claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’310 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue this ground. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.10 10 As guidance to the parties, we note that it is unclear that the Petition, unlike Dr. Akl’s testimony, argues how a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Horie. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 98 (arguing that the differences between the first and second transmission channels in Horie “would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that separate and independent lines of communication could be employed in Horie’s system for the sending/receiving of requests and notifications.”), with Pet. 32–33 (not making the argument in Dr. Akl’s testimony). The parties should address in the Response and Reply (1) whether the Petition argues how and why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Horie and (2), if not, whether we can rely on the argument in Dr. Akl’s testimony that is not made in the Petition.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “no claim terms require an express construction.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). 3 If Patent Owner disagrees with this formulation of the level of skill in the art, it must raise that disagreement in its Response. If a different level of skill would affect the outcome in this case, the parties must brief that issue as well. The failure of Patent Owner to describe how a different level of skill in the art is determinative will be a forfeiture of that argument. If there is a dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, then the parties are also encouraged to submit evidence, other than conclusory expert testimony, that supports their position. 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.”). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.4, 5 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,357,310 - PTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00369 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 based on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). We may institute inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition and the evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–7 of the ’706 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“motivated to combine Horie and Kobayashi, specifically to improve Horie’s confirmation option. Pet. 18–21. For example, Petitioner asserts Horie discloses sending a card transaction notification to a user device, with the option to issue a transaction cancellation request. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 73). But, Petitioner notes that Horie does not disclose details on cancelling a transaction. Id. So Petitioner asserts that one of skill in the art would have looked to Kobayashi’s known techniques for preventing fraudulent transactions. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–73). Specifically, Petitioner cites to Kobayashi’s method for verifying user identity, by notifying a user of a transaction using a pre-registered mobile phone number. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 57; Ex. 1003 ¶ 74). In response, the user indicates whether or not the card can be used by entering a number determined at the time of card creation and a predetermined operation button. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 60, 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–74). Petitioner contends that implementing Kobayashi’s fraud prevention interface with Horie applies a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. Id. at 20 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75, 76). Petitioner concludes that, given the similarity between Horie and Kobayashi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the disclosures. Id. at 20–21 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75, 76). On this record and for purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner has presented sufficient motivation to combine Horie and Kobayashi and reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“terms require an express construction.” Pet. 8. Instead, Petitioner addresses what it asserts is a typographical error in claim 1, which twice recites the term “merchant’s.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:54); see also Ex. 1001, 5:56. The possessive term “merchant’s” is not followed by a subject noun. See id. Although not identified by Petitioner, claim 6 also includes the recitation of “merchant’s” without a subject noun. See Ex. 1001, 6:52. Petitioner contends that during prosecution of the parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,357,310 B2, “the applicant explained that the ‘secure network and the ‘payment guarantee’ channel are illustrated between the acquirer 8 [sic] and the modem 5 of the merchant’s terminal.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 45). Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that both instances of “merchant’s” should be read as “merchant’s terminal.” Id. We accept Petitioner’s argument at this stage of the proceeding. The parties should address this apparent typographical error in claims 1 and 6 during trial, including (1) whether there is an obvious typographical error and (2) whether we should correct it. See Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., 35 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Beable Education, Inc. v. Achieve3000, Inc., IPR2021-01169, Paper 34, 10–11 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2023) (Final Written Decision). At this stage of the proceeding and based on the current record, we need not construe explicitly any of the claim language discussed in this section or any other claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below.8 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) at the time the invention was made “would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with wired and wireless networks used to securely process requests for authorization of activity such as financial transactions.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Additionally, Petitioner contends that “[l]ess experience is necessary with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, less education is necessary with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Id. Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. 6 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we determine this level of skill, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which we remove from Petitioner’s proposal, comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’706 patent and the prior art of record.7” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,954,706
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.