- PTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00085 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, and 15 on all asserted grounds, 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
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, 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 ’659 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We disagree with Patent Owner. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation.”8 The Director’s Memorandum explains that, when a petitioner makes a Sotera-type stipulation, “it mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB” and “[w]ith such a stipulation, if an IPR or PGR is instituted, the grounds the PTAB resolves will differ from those present in 8 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretio nary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Director’s Memorandum”). the parallel district court litigation.” Director’s Memorandum 7 (citing Sotera, IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19). Pursuant to the Director’s Memorandum, we “will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Id. Because Petitioner provides a Sotera-type stipulation, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision as it appears consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). Petitioner’s proposed definition appears overly restrictive, as it requires a graduate degree in a narrow field of engineering or equivalent experience. We find that a bachelor’s degree with the accompanying experience proposed by Patent Owner more closely aligns with the prior art of record and the ’659 patent. We note, however, there is some overlap in the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art because Patent Owner’s proposal includes “at least” a bachelor’s degree, which would encompass Petitioner’s master’s degree as well. Prelim. Resp. 19. Nonetheless, our determination herein would be the same under either party’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s claim construction. By using the word “or,” the plain and ordinary meaning of “prone, kneeling, or standing” is that only one must be satisfied to meet the claim. See, e.g., SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The disjunctive ‘or’ plainly designates that a series describes alternatives.”). Furthermore, and although claims are read in light of the specification, limitations in a specification are not read into a claim. In re van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even if the Specification describes embodiments in which the user can begin in a prone position and then transition to a kneeling or standing position, as Patent Owner points out (see Prelim. Resp. 20), the claim does not recite the term “transitioning,” and we do not read the terms “each of” or “substantially flat surface” into this claim limitation. For example, the claim does not recite a “substantially flat” top surface and Patent Owner’s attempt to infer this structure into the claim is not supported under the law. See id. at 29–30. For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and construe “prone, kneeling, or standing” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as alternatives, and the prior art need only show one to satisfy this aspect of the claim.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,586,659 - PTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00086 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining Fintiv denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in an inter partes review). slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“1. “wherein a user can be disposed on the top surface of the flotation device in a prone, kneeling, or standing position” With respect to the claim term “wherein a user can be disposed on the top surface of the flotation device in a prone, kneeling, or standing position,” Patent Owner points to passages of the Specification, arguing that all three positions are possible. Prelim. Resp. 19–21 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstr., 4:13–17, 4:33–40; Ex. 2006 ¶ 18). We do not agree with Patent’s Owner proposed construction because even if the Specification discloses that all three positions are possible, that is not what the plain language of the claim requires. Claim 1 recites “or,” which means that a user can be disposed on the top surface of the flotation device in any one of the three positions. See, e.g., SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The disjunctive ‘or’ plainly designates that a series describes alternatives.”). Patent Owner does not identify any definition or disclaimer that would modify this plain meaning. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, we agree with Petitioner and apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase “wherein a user can be disposed on the top surface of the flotation device in a prone, kneeling, or standing position,” to construe “prone, kneeling, or standing” as alternatives, and the prior art need only show one to satisfy this aspect of the claim.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Neither party explains how or why its particular proposal impacts the issues before us in this proceeding. We find that a bachelor’s degree with the accompanying experience proposed by Patent Owner more closely aligns with the prior art of record and the ’044 patent. We note, however, there is some overlap in the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art because Patent Owner’s proposal includes “at least” a bachelor’s degree, which would encompass Petitioner’s master’s degree as well. Prelim. Resp. 10. Nonetheless, our determination herein would be the same under either party’s definition.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“As the Board has held in a precedential decision, “at the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,359,044 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Advanced Coding Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00062 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that the prior art disclosed or taught the construed “emphasis level” limitation in any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“which the amplitude of the high frequency components of the video signal is increased,” as required by the construction of “emphasis level.”7 See Prelim. Resp. 9 (“the Petition’s analysis of the claim limitations containing these terms against the cited references does not indicate that those references disclose these limitations under Petitioner’s proposed constructions in the District Court Action”). Thus, without Petitioner mapping the constructions to the prior art in a clear and identifiable way, we determine the Petition itself does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)– (4).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“the terms “emphasis processing” and “emphasis level.” In the Petition, Petitioner states that no constructions are necessary (Pet. 2), but after filing 2 US 5,491,514; issued Feb. 13, 1996. Ex. 1005. 3 US 5,241,387; issued Aug. 31, 1993. Ex. 1006. 4 US 6,801,665 B1; published Sept. 30, 1999. Ex. 1007. the Petition, Petitioner proposed constructions of those terms in the parties’ district-court litigation, stating that: (i) the claim term “emphasis processing” means “increasing the amplitude of the high frequency components of a video signal;” and (ii) the claim term “emphasis level” means “a value that represents the amount by which the amplitude of the high frequency components of the video signal is increased.” Ex. 2003, 10– 11. After Patent Owner relied on those constructions in its Preliminary Response (see, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8–10),5 Petitioner requested (Ex. 3001), and the Board authorized (Paper 8), additional briefing to address how the analysis in the Petition applies under those constructions.6 Because we determine Petitioner’s showings with respect to those constructions are inadequate to carry Petitioner’s burden, our discussion below focuses primarily on those aspects of the parties’ briefing.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“Discretionary Denial Because we determine Petitioner has not carried its burden on the merits, we do not reach the parties’ arguments relating to discretionary denial. See Pet. 98–99; Prelim. Resp. 26–32.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,845,128 - Mediatek Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00150 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5 on all four asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Gibson and Schiltz combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“As set forth in the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (dated June 21, 2022), at 7, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Petitioner’s stipulation (Ex. 1025) satisfies the language from the Director’s Memorandum quoted above. Therefore, we need not analyze each Fintiv factor to reach the determination that we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution in view of the parallel Western District of Texas Litigation.” slip op. at 14
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. The Petition is clear that it presents alternative challenges where Goldberg, Thacker, ITU-T J.83, and/or AAPA are added to the combination of Gibson and Schiltz or are added to Crols, if the term “cable modem,” recited in the preamble of claim 1, is determined to be limiting. Pet. 6–7. In the context presented here, “and/or” clearly means one or more of the four additional references. And Petitioner’s reliance on one or more of the additional references is clear in the context of the issues before us based on Petitioner’s analysis of the preamble of claim 1, where Petitioner clearly states, “[a]nd to the extent that the preamble is limiting and requires a ‘cable modem,’ it would have been obvious to use the modem of Gibson (as modified by Schiltz, discussed below) as a cable modem, in view of Thacker, Goldberg, ITU-T J.83, and/or AAPA.” Pet. 42 (Ground 1); see id. at 66–67 (similarly asserting, in the context of Ground 2, that, “[t]o the extent that the preamble is limiting and requires a ‘cable modem,’ it would have been obvious to use the modem of Crols as a cable modem, in view of Thacker, Goldberg, ITU-T J.83, and/or AAPA”). Petitioner also includes a discussion as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “use the modems of Gibson modified with Schiltz (Ground 1), and Crols (Ground 2), as ‘cable modems,’ in view of the DOCSIS References (Thacker and Goldberg), ITU-T J.83, and AAPA,” and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing. Id. at 37–40. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the Petition lacks particularity and we find that the Petition clearly sets forth the alternative combinations discussed above such that Patent Owner has a fair opportunity to respond.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“l. Summary as to Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, on the present record we find that Petitioner has established that the combination of Gibson and Schiltz teaches each of the elements of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these two references as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 40
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is identical to the level of skill that we found applicable in the final written decision in the TCL IPR. See IPR2021-00985, Paper 44 at 13. We see no reason to deviate from our previous finding, which is now further supported by Dr. Larson’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’835 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,292,835 - PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00208 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds and declining discretionary denial under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“Office conducted any analysis or evaluation of Wu. There is no mention of Wu by the Examiner and no articulated consideration of Wu by the Office. As noted above, Advanced Bionics provides that “[a]t bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9 (emphasis added). Here, despite Wu (or more precisely, the substantially identical Wu. Publ.) having been previously presented to the Office, we are not directed to, and we cannot find, any analysis or evaluation by the Office of Wu in the file history. See generally Ex. 1002.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,709 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’709 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”) at 1. SES-Imagotag Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 12, “Prelim. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 13, “Prelim. Sur-reply”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“necessary to resolve the controversy involved in this IPR, and the terms of the ’709 Patent should be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 4. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage, no need exists to expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“planogram” (id. at 37). We determine that these contentions lack merit and Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Wu discloses these limitations.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,010,709 - PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00188 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–15 on both §103 grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, and the Sur-reply “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–15 of the ’669 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“systems, or an equivalent field with two or more years of work experience in electrical engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, computer engineering, or an equivalent field.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Petitioner further notes that “[a]dditional education in a relevant field or relevant industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art at this time. Prelim. Resp. 18 n.5 (“For purposes of this [Preliminary Response] only, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.5 It is supported by the testimony of Dr. Tentzeris and not disputed by Patent Owner. Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“the ‘communication stage’ recited in element [1.3] is simply a ‘communication module or unit’ that communicates data.” Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:49–50, 2:19–20, 3:24–28, 3:63–65; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–76). In response, Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner offers a brand-new claim construction for ‘communication stage,’” which “the Petition never offered,” and also that “Petitioner offers its new construction based exclusively on attorney argument without the benefit of evidence in support.” Sur-reply 6, 9. To the extent necessary to determine whether to institute trial, we address these arguments as part of our unpatentability analysis below. See infra § II.D.3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“supposed well-recognized need in synchronizing video displays and that “[t]he only evidence Petitioner offers to explain why a POSITA would have modified Swafford with Masumoto relies on hindsight and two references besides Swafford and Masumoto—Yamada (Ex. 1010) and Kipp (Ex. 1006).” Prelim. Resp. 34–35. At least at this stage, as Petitioner’s contentions are supported by evidence including an expert declaration and Patent Owner’s contrary arguments are unsupported attorney argument, we give more weight to Petitioner’s contentions and find them sufficient to support the asserted combination of teachings. However, we do agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contention that the cited combination of teachings is supported “because of the structural similarity between Swafford’s and Masumoto’s devices” (Pet. 54– 55) does not provide a motivation to combine. Prelim. Resp, 35–36. The only structural similarity relied on by Petitioner in support of this argument is that Swafford and Masumoto both disclose use of LCDs. See Pet. 54–55. Petitioner provides an inadequate explanation as to how or why the use of LCDs which are a common form of video displays would motivate the combination of the relied-upon teachings. But, this deficiency does not undermine the persuasiveness of Petitioner’s overall showing of motivation to combine. We determine that Petitioner shows sufficiently, for the purpose of institution, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the relied-upon teachings of Swafford and Masumoto with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,405,669 - PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00189 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success based on Fujiwara, Fujiwara and Arntzen, Bandy and Fowler, and Bandy, Fowler, and Arntzen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will succeed on all its challenges to patentability, namely: claims 1–9 as obvious over Fujiwara; claims 1–9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Fujiwara and Arntzen; claims 1– 5 and 8–9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Bandy and Fowler; and claims 1–5 and 8–9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Bandy, Fowler, and Arntzen. XII. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) an inter partes review of the ’340 Patent is hereby instituted, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial;” slip op. at 52
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinarily skilled artisan”) as one having “at least a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, or an equivalent field (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree).” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1009, Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 34). Petitioner also states that “[a]lternatively, a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, or an equivalent field with two or more years of work experience in electrical engineering, wireless telecommunication systems, computer engineering, or an equivalent field” and that “[a]dditional education in a relevant field or relevant industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of these requirements.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009, Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 34). Patent Owner does not comment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As the subject matter of the ’340 patent and the references appears to be consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art described by Petitioner, we apply Petitioner’s description for purposes of the Decision. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner proposes that the terms of the ’340 patent claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 3. Patent Owner contends that Fujiwara does not use the term “planogram” and that Petitioner has not demonstrated Fujiwara discloses the claimed planogram. Prelim. Resp. 19–22. The ’340 patent states “[a] planogram lists the locations of all the electronics labels [3] and of the items on sale in a sales area.” Ex. 1001, 6:35–37. Patent Owner also notes that Fowler states that “[a] planogram is a diagram of fixtures and products that illustrates how and where retail products should be displayed, usually on a store shelf, bin or counter in order to influence consumer selection.” Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 221). In view of these descriptions of a planogram, we agree with the parties that no further construction of this term is required. slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,674,340 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00139 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds; it found a reasonable likelihood that the CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper render claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the evidence currently of record, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’551 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2– 3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design” and “the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa.” Pet. 23. Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s 6 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. level of ordinary skill is too high. Prelim. Resp. 32. According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an associate degree in an engineering discipline, and 1–2 years’ experience in electrical power systems” and “[a] lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). At this stage, we do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ positions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we preliminarily determine a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and two years of experience in electrical power systems.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Although we determine it is unnecessary to expressly construe “multi- function line” at this stage, we present the following discussion and encourage the parties to further address the term in future briefing. As an initial matter, we note that the specification distinguishes the claimed “multifunction line” from messenger wires of the prior art. First, the specification states that in the prior art, “a conductor or grounding wire [was] disposed adjacent the messenger wires; hereinafter, such a wire is identified as a grounding conductor.” Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:3.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“unpatentable based on the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper.8 Among other things, the ’551 patent recognizes that the need for a grounding conductor was known in the art, acknowledging the known use of a wire adjacent to the messenger wires in the prior art and stating that “[t]he grounding conductor must be coupled to a current path to the ground.” Ex. 1001, 1:60–2:16. The CAB Whitepaper states that the electrical industry is “heavily focused on grounding and bonding of metallic parts,” discusses NEC standards, and refers to a “grounded steel messenger wire.” Ex. 1006, 14. Notably, neither the CAB Website nor the CAB Whitepaper discloses a grounding wire adjacent to the messenger wire; instead, at this stage we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper to depict a grounding system that includes metal-to-metal contact between metal messenger wires, metal brackets, and metal piles. Pet. 48–51; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 108–112. It is not currently clear on this record that Patent Owner’s arguments that the references’ messenger wires being “grounded” meaningfully distinguishes the claim’s requirements of a grounding system. Even under Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “multi-function line” (Prelim. Resp. 32, 36), the record supports Petitioner’s positions that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper to disclose or at least reasonably suggest a messenger wire acting as a tension member that supports cable hangers and current wires 8 On the current record, we question whether Petitioner has adequately advanced arguments for combining the teachings of the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper. The parties are encouraged to address this issue. and that provides a current path as a grounding conductor. We are not currently persuaded that the ’551 patent’s statement that “a messenger wire is not a ‘multi-function line’” excludes the messenger wires of the CAB Website or the CAB Whitepaper (Prelim. Resp. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:27–40), 44–48); read in the context of the surrounding portions of the specification, we preliminarily understand that statement to mean that a messenger wire that is not conductive does not fall within the definition of a “multi-function line.” For example, the specification states: “The grounding system includes a multi-function line assembly and a number of conductive mounting assemblies. Each conductive mounting assembly is structured to be, and is, coupled to the multi-function line and to a conductive pile. This configuration provides a path to ground for a current in the multi-function line assembly.” Ex. 1001, 2:27–33. We are also not currently persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the phrase “structured to” in claim 1 distinguishes the references’ teachings. In sum, at this stage, we are preliminarily persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence that the CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper disclose or at least reasonably suggest the multi-function line as claimed, as well as the remaining limitations of claim 1.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,177,551 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00182 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable and had not shown a second petition was necessary.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Nor has Petitioner demonstrated a need to file a second petition challenging the claims of the ’291 patent. We therefore do not grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“This overlap in coverage of the claims asserted in the district court litigation in the ’178 and ’182 petitions means that Petitioner has filed two petitions that cover the same claims asserted in the district court litigation. The few, non-overlapping claims challenged in each petition are not asserted in the district court litigation. Under the first factor in General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, 9–10 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017), we find that the petitions are directed to the same claims at issue in the district court litigation. See Paper 3, 3–4; Paper 16, 1–2. This factor weighs against exercising our discretion to allow two petitions.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art or propose its own definition of a skilled artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp. Dr. Kern testifies that for purposes of his analysis he is assuming the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art provided by Petitioner. Ex. 2001 ¶ 20. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’291 patent and the prior art of record. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, Petitioner does not propose any claim construction of any claim term expressly. Pet. 18. At this stage, Patent Owner does not propose the construction of any claim term expressly. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the present record, we determine that we do not need to construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute, and no terms require construction for us to reach our Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,349,291 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Apr 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00178 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 14–22, 24, and 25 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Carr–Almy obviousness ground.
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) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner also asserts that the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On the current record, we preliminarily interpret “electrical cables” as “wiring that conducts current or signals.” The parties are encouraged to present relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of this term and whether the preamble should be construed as limiting. This meaning is consistent with the ’291 patent’s description of cable hangers used to support “electrical cables [that] extend from a power or signal source to a location of application” in solar, mining, and electrical industries. Ex. 1001, 1:18–22 (emphasis added). The electrical cables are DC wires that attach to solar panels, AC cables that power motors to rotate solar panels, and category five cables for control wiring. Id. at 1:22–51. The claims recite “electrical cables” not “electrical power cables.” Ex. 1001, 10:24–13:7. We do not limit “electrical cables” to particular types of cables, e.g., AC cables or DC cables, absent a lexicographic definition or a disclaimer in the specification, neither of which are asserted by either party in this proceeding. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“artisan would have modified Almy’s system by replacing wire loops 204B with Caveney’s cable supports that attach to building structures and frames using fasteners as discussed in Section II.D.2. supra, rather than messenger wires extending from solar panels. As discussed in Section II.D. supra for Ground 1, Caveney’s cable hangers are secured to building structures and frames by threaded rod fasteners. On this record, we are not persuaded that the hanger plates 40 and clamps 34 that fasten Caveney’s cable hangers to building structures and brackets using apertures 46, 48 and fasteners would secure Caveney’s cable hangers to Almy’s messenger wire, or that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify these structures of Caveney to attach to, and be disposed along, Almy’s messenger wire in order to replace Almy’s closed wire loops 204B with Caveney’s open cable supports 42, 44. Dr. Beik testifies that “Caveney is directed at a multi-tiered cable hanger that can be adapted for attaching to a variety of structures or support surfaces, including messenger wires,” but he supports this assertion by citing Caveney’s disclosure that cable support system 30 is secured to any fastener or structure such as a threaded rod, different brackets, a joist, a ceiling, or a wall. Ex. 1002 ¶ 76 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:3–9). On the current record, we find that the threaded rods secure cable support system 30 to the structures. See Ex. 1003, 2:65–3:1, 3:21–28, 5:63–67, 6:12–15, Figs. 1–7, 20–22. We find that Caveney’s cable supports are designed to attach to fixed, rigid structures such as brackets, joists, ceilings, and walls in a building using threaded rods with hanger plates 40 and brackets 34 that have apertures 46, 48 to receive threaded rod fasteners that secure the cable hangers to building structures. Id. at 3:1–28, 5:63–67, Figs. 1–7, 10–13, 20–22. We are not persuaded on this record that the threaded rod fasteners teach or suggest messenger wires. d. Conclusion On this record, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Caveney and Almy as asserted by Petitioner to render claim 14 unpatentable.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,349,291
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.