- PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00511 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Shaffer-Keller obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’949 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Other
“below, we agree with Petitioner on this record that the ’852 patent claims lack priority to the parent application, Shaffer. For example, paragraph 34 of the ’299 application11 resulting in the ’852 patent explains that “IS 102 (FIG. 1) can determine if the endpoint 104 adheres to the rules of transmission.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 34. This paragraph does not state that any other device (such as the endpoint itself) receives a determination from the IS that the endpoint does not adhere to the rules of transmission. Figure 7, reproduced below, is similarly devoid of any such description: 11 U.S. App. No. 14/523,299 (Ex. 1004). The specification describes Figure 7 as “an example methodology that can facilitate dynamic communication between non-compatible communication devices.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 55. The specification further explains that “if the device demonstrates that it cannot comply with the behavioral characteristics of the interoperability system, the device can be attached to a VTG [virtual talk group] via a proxy,” in blocks 710 and 714 of Figure 7. Id. ¶ 56. But the ’299 application does not explain that this lack of compliance is communicated to any device, such as an endpoint.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner also sets forth a rationale to combine Shaffer and Keller. Id. at 33–34. For example, Petitioner argues that Shaffer’s goal was to provide a way for incompatible endpoints to work using “standards-based IP technologies,” and Keller’s SIP protocol is an established “standards-based IP technolog[y]” for signaling in PTT. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 155). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have looked for an example of such a system, such as Keller’s SIP-based system, for a PTT system as in Shaffer. Id. at 33–34. Combining these systems therefore 15 This appears to be a typographical error, as Petitioner appears to be quoting Ex. 1024 ¶ 122. “would have been seen by a POSITA as nothing more than a combination of known elements according to their established functions to achieve an expected result, and would been considered to constitute nothing more than a routine engineering task that was well within the skill level of a POSITA,” Petitioner argues. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 155). On this record, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Shaffer and Keller discloses limitation [1c] and determine that Petitioner articulates a sufficient rationale to combine these references.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus approximately three years of industry in networking or communication systems, in particular address interoperability between different types of networks and satellite communications,” and that “[a]dditional education in the fields of electrical engineering or computer science, such as a masters or doctorate degree, could substitute for professional experience in the field.” Pet. 14–15. Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. at 15. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 7. Based on the current record, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with the ’852 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,319,852 - Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2024 · PGR2023-00016 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12, 14–17, and 19 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable
“B. Claims 1–20 of the ’705 Patent Petitioner argues that claims 1–20 of the ’705 patent have an effective” slip op. at 19
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
Patent outcomesUS 11,297,705 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,297,705 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 17–21 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Houston and Garcia render at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Thus, Patent Owner has shown that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Turning to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. As Petitioner argues, there is no evidence that the references in question were meaningfully addressed during the prosecution of the ’520 patent — there was no evaluation of the art or articulation regarding any arguments applying that art. Pet. 11. We note that the IPR petitions were submitted only after the prosecution came to a purported end with an Issue Notification — submission of the petitions briefly postponed issuance, but resulted in no further substantive actions other than a later issuance.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Accordingly, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s specific arguments directed to claim requirement 17[e], and its arguments discussed above generally relating to all of Petitioner’s grounds, for the reasons discussed above, for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that the record sufficiently supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirements 17[e] and 17[f]. d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 17 Based on our analysis set forth above, including our analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations of nonobviousness, we determine, on the current record and for purposes of this Decision, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 45
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’520 patent (September 22, 2012): would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field and two or more years of experience in a related field such as networked computer systems using Internet protocols. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Pet. 40–41; Ex. 2045. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument, that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared, is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the email and folder interface teachings of Garcia to modify Houston. Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 84–93, 102–104, 148, 151–152. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Magic Leap, Inc. v. Percept Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00494 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8, 11, 17, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Mann ’895 and Pemer.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Now, after institution, Patent Owner does not challenge the Petition’s formulation of ordinary skill, or address the level of ordinary skill at all. See PO Resp. generally. Accordingly, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision that Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill is supported persuasively by the testimony of Dr. LaViola, and is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’929 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply Petitioner’s formulation in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1006 ¶ 32 (emphasis added). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the eye is not “alive” (id. ¶ 27) then the eye will remain “stationary” (id. ¶ 32) as Pemer operates its light sources 112 and 114, so the eye will “not appear in the difference image” (id.) at all. Patent Owner’s counsel agreed with these findings, and characterized the resulting difference image of an eye that is not alive as a “null pattern” or a “null image.” Tr. 24:9–24, 28:15–24, 33:16–34:5. Patent Owner’s counsel argued that such a null difference image may be used to authorize a user in Pemer. That is, counsel argued that when Pemer determines “the eyes are dead,” Pemer “still does the comparison with the database” and “if there’s a match, you know, like a null pattern, I guess, produced from the dead eye . . . it’s still granted the sight license [i.e., user authorization].” Tr. 24:17–24, 33:16–34:8. In particular, according to counsel, Pemer’s two light sources 112 and 14 cause “reflective [sic ‘reflexive’]” eye movement6 if the eye is alive, such that an unlicensed user “can’t fake the null pattern from a dead eye, so it still works.” Id. at 24:24–25:6. Similarly, when asked “how is Pemer then going to use the null image to authenticate the person?”, counsel responded that “the null image would be unique to that [authorized] user” and a “thief can’t do anything to prevent his or her eye from moving” in response to Pemer’s lights sources, so the thief “wouldn’t get a null comparison image to authenticate against” such that “the null pattern would still be unique to a wearer with a dead eye.” Id. at 28:17–29:15. Patent Owner’s counsel’s foregoing argument is not supported by Pemer. The Pemer disclosures cited by counsel state only that Pemer “indicates whether the eye (E) is alive” based on a null image resulting from lack of eye movement. Ex. 1006 ¶ 27 (emphasis added). Pemer does not disclose or suggest that a null image is used to authenticate a user. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26, 27, 30, 35 (cited at PO Sur-reply 13–14). Indeed, in a disclosure not cited by Patent Owner, Pemer states its “iris feature detector . . . can be used in identification and authentication systems” including “identification systems that only respond to a live eye.”” slip op. at 37
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededMixed
“between eye movement and activation of circuitry, however, they do so in a permissive rather than a limiting fashion. That is, such a relationship is described as an “example” that “could be used” in “a preferred embodiment,” rather than a definitional or otherwise limiting description of the claim term “responsive to.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 8 (“[T]he patentee did not provide the term any other or exceptional meaning in the specification of the ’929 patent.”); Tr. 25:21–26:9 (Patent Owner’s counsel admitting it would be “improper” to cite the ’929 patent specification as “limit[ing] the claim”). We discern nothing in these disclosures that would limit the claimed response to require a cause and effect relationship. We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the specification into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“particular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect”); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.”).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We conclude Petitioner’s asserted motivations for combining Mann ’895 and Pemer to practice the invention of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In particular, as discussed above in Section III.F.4(i), the eyewear of Mann ’895 includes an iris scanner for activating circuitry in order to implement Mann’s sight license feature. Pemer, as discussed above in Section III.F.4(ii), discloses an iris scanner that authorizes a user responsive to eye motion of the user. We determine a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to combine these disclosures such that the eyewear of Mann ’895 employs an iris scanner that activates the eyewear circuitry responsive to eye motion of user, for the reasons asserted by Petitioner as summarized above in this Section which we adopt as our own. For example, we determine now, as we did in the Institution Decision, that a person of ordinary skill in the art desiring to use the eyewear of Mann ’895 would understand that “an iris scanner” was one option for implementing Mann’s sight license feature, yet Mann ’895 does not provide any details concerning the structure or operation of this iris scanner. Ex. 1005, 11:21–25; see Inst. Dec. 26. It makes sense, therefore, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to other references to provide such implementation details, and would have concluded Pemer’s iris scanner was a good option, because it would provide the computational advantages described in Pemer and cited by Petitioner. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4–5, 25; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–58.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,010,929 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,010,929 - Magic Leap, Inc. v. Percept Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00495 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 12–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Osterhout and, independently, over Mann ’526 and Vaissie.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have had a B.S. degree and a Masters degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Physics, or an equivalent field, as well as one to two years of academic or industry experience in wearable electronic devices or comparable industry experience. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Although the level of skill in the art was addressed in the Preliminary Response and the Decision on Institution (see Prelim. Resp. 27–30; Dec. on Inst. 6–10), Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“For all of the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed ordinary and customary meaning for “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens” because it is not supported by the claim language or the ’113 Patent Specification, and is supported only by unsworn attorney argument. Patent Owner further asserts that the Board should provide a construction for “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens of the wearable optics” in order to resolve the controversy. See PO Resp. 8; PO Sur-reply 2–3; see also PO Sur-reply 2 (“Simply stating how the claims should be understood without then deciding what that understand[ing] is, is legal error,” citing O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). We do not agree with Patent Owner that a construction for the ordinary and customary meaning of “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in to construe ‘those terms . . . that are in controversy. . . only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. As demonstrated in the analysis that follows in Sections II.D. and II.E., Patent Owner asserts that neither Osterhout nor the combination of Mann ’526 and Vaissie teaches or suggests “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens” based only on Patent Owner’s proposed ordinary and customary meaning. Patent Owner does not challenge the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing as to this limitation based on any other construction. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. Thus, we are able to resolve the patentability controversies presented in this proceeding (that is, whether the challenged claims would have been obvious over Osterhout and over Mann ’526 and Vaissie) without construing the plain and ordinary meaning of “in communication with” apart from rejecting Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Having considered both parties’ arguments and the evidence cited by the parties to support their respective arguments, we are persuaded that “a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens” is disclosed or taught by Osterhout. Based on the entire record, we determine Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Osterhout discloses or teaches the preamble recitation, and the limitations of “a lens; and a dynamic eye tracking mechanism in communication with the lens.” See Pet. 19–20.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Mann ’526 with the teachings of Vaissie because Vaissie explains that implementing eye tracking in head-mounted devices can advantageously allow physically challenged people to interact with such devices and to realize the advantages of enhancing local images, correcting depth perception difficulties, and increasing resolution of visual displays. See Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–150; Ex. 1006, 24:66– 25:31, Fig. 10; Ex. 1007, 1:40–53, 1:56–58). Patent Owner does not address or rebut Petitioner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Mann ’526 and Mann ’526, Vaissie, and Dr. LaViola’s testimony (Ex. 1003), we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mann ’526 with Vaissie’s teachings of optical parameter measurements. See Pet. 56–59; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Having considered both parties’ arguments and the evidence cited by the parties to support their respective arguments, we are persuaded that this limitation is taught by the combination of Mann ’526 and Vaissie. Based on the entire record, we determine Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Mann ’526 and Vaissie teaches this limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 56–59.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,696,113 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,696,113 - Jeisys Medical Inc. v. Serendia, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00386 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–29, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 are unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“D. Analysis The Director’s recent Videndum decision provides that where no “significant relationship [exists] under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” See Videndum, Paper 12 at 6. Moreover, the Director’s decision in Ford clarified that “court-ordered” coordination alone between parties having different accused products does not establish a significant relationship absent “other relevant or extenuating facts or circumstances” that might evidence a significant relationship, such as “interactions or agreements regarding the implementation of the accused [technology] into their respective accused products.” Ford, Paper 28 at 10–11. We do not find a significant relationship exists between the prior and current petitioners so as to warrant discretionary denial under General Plastic. First, like the parties in Ford, the prior and current petitioners are competitors selling different products, and there is no evidence of agreements regarding the implementation of the claimed technology into their respective accused products. See Ford, Paper 28 at 10; cf. Valve, Paper 11 at 10 (“Valve represented that ‘HTC’s VIVE devices incorporate certain Valve technologies under a technology license from Valve,’ and that ‘Valve employees did provide HTC with technical assistance during the development of the accused VIVE devices.’”). Second, and also like in Ford, the “Ground Rules” for the ITC Investigation required that “[p]arties with similar interests should coordinate and consolidate motion practice to the extent practicable” (Ex. 1041 § 2) and “must coordinate and consolidate depositions and all other discovery” (id. § 3.1). Indeed, we understand that all fourteen co-respondents in the ITC Investigation submitted the joint expert report of Dr. Jean Woloszko. See Ex. 2004, 1; see also Ford, Paper 28 at 3. Third, we do not find the current Petitioner’s mere knowledge of litigation—either in the ITC or district court—against competitors in RF microneedling to establish a significant relationship with those competitors. Cf. Ford, Paper 17 at 3 (noting that where the patent at issue had been asserted against multiple competitors regarding their respective accused products, “merely engag[ing] in court-ordered pretrial coordination” is by itself insufficient to establish a “significant relationship” between the parties). Fourth, we do not find the current Petitioner to have engaged in improper gamesmanship through “tactical delay.” As Petitioner explains, the Prior Petition was filed in response to a district court action filed by Patent Owner against the prior petitioners, but not Petitioner, while the current Petition was filed in response to an ITC Investigation initiated after the denial of the Prior Petition. Patent Owner’s remaining arguments are directed to other factors in the General Plastic analysis and do not evidence a significant relationship between the prior and current Petitioners. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under General Plastic.” slip op. at 13
- 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, 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 ’836 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–29 of the ’836 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“IV. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSITA”) would have had (1) 7–10 years of experience with developing and/or using treatment systems for delivery of electromagnetic radiation energy to skin or other tissues, and (2) a related graduate engineering degree or M.D. and may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also would have taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others on the team when solving a technical problem. Ex. 1028, 14–15; see also Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, 15; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50, 51); see also Prelim. Resp. 29. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the parties’ assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is consistent with the prior art of record and the ’836 patent.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner expressly construe any term. See Pet. 9; see also Prelim. Resp. 30. For purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not formally construe any claim term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,480,836 - PTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00063 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Prikowitsch or Sar-Shalom.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“16–23; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there are parallel district court proceedings). 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” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR” (Ex. 1055, 2), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. As to Patent Owner’s allegation that Petitioner should not be able to file a stipulation after the Preliminary Response (Prelim. Resp. 22–23), we determine that Petitioner’s filing of its Sotera stipulation at the time it did is proper. NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556, Paper 13 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2022) (precedential) (holding the Board may only consider stipulations offered before a decision on institution).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Having reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ’227 patent is unpatentable over Prikowitsch.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In summary, we determine that adoption of either party’s proposed construction does not provide a meaningful difference at this time; both appear to cover the same idea. Indeed, given that the claims already state that the call completion application detects an incomplete call, receives a call completion action, and triggers execution of the call completion action, we see no reason to construe “call completion application” to require anything beyond what is already in the claims. On this record, we see no support in the claims or specification to hold that a “call completion application” can be read as operating without reliance on a network in some way.2 Instead, after the call completion application becomes aware of an incomplete call, the application receives a choice from a user and triggers execution of that choice, and in accordance with the ’227 patent 2 To the extent Patent Owner’s proposed construction is seeking to preclude a network in the performance of the call completion application, then we would not agree with that construction. The call completion application is always dependent on the infrastructure of a communication network; as should be clear from our analysis above, the ’227 patent is focused on independence from the call completion services provided by the called party’s network. Notwithstanding the choice of call completion action being independent of the call completion services provided by the called party’s network, the call completion action still must rely on the network to provide the infrastructure to carry out certain actions. specification, it is that choice that is not premised on a limitation imposed by the called party’s network. Ex. 1001, 1:54–62 (“a system that complete[s] an incomplete call . . . independent of a preconfigured call completion service on the called party’s network”) (emphasis added), 2:39–43 (“the system . . . enables transmission of a voice message by a calling party to a called party when a network component or a called party device is not configured to offer a call completion option to the calling party to leave a voice message”). We do not explicitly provide a claim construction of any claim limitation in this Decision at this time because the issue of whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood can be resolved without explicitly construing the claim. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). However, our analysis places the parties on notice of the potential scope of the claims.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two-three years of experience with multimedia and Internet-related communications technologies, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill at this time. Prelim. Resp. 4. We adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, which appears consistent with the level of disclosure provided in the ’227 patent and the prior art cited.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,227 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00422 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–5, and 7–16 as anticipated by Foss; claims 2, 6, and 17–20 as obvious over Foss and Hirka.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s skill definition is not “well-grounded in the facts,” but this assertion is conclusory and unpersuasive. See id. at 11. We discuss this assertion again below in the context of Patent Owner’s merits arguments. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’301 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“possession when the same dictionary proposes other definitions, such as “[a]ssociated with.” See PO Resp. 6–7. Nor does Patent Owner point to any disclosure in the ’301 patent specification that supports its more restrictive construction. When discussing “account information” in connection with an “account,” the specification merely describes “account information for the account.” Ex. 1002, 1:54–55, 10:49–50 (emphasis added). The phrase “account information of the separate account” does not occur in the specification, and neither party addresses any relevant prosecution history. There is no basis in the intrinsic record, then, for reading a restrictive interpretation of this phrase. Patent Owner overlooks that where the specification does not use a term restrictively, “the broader dictionary definition . . . is preferable.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d, 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[J]udges are free to . . . rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” (internal quotation omitted)). As noted above, the parties point to no intrinsic evidence, whether in the specification or prosecution history, that informs the meaning of the term “of.” And the definition “associated with” in Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary is a broader definition than the definition “possessing.” See Ex. 2001, 2. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “account information of the separate account” in claims 1 and 7 at least encompasses “account information associated with the separate account.”” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner that this limitation is not inherently disclosed by Foss based on the possibility of Foss’s system sending debit account information instead of overdraft account information. That is because “account information of the separate account” encompasses “account information associated with the separate account,” under the correct claim construction. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 387 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 17). As noted above, Mr. Zatkovich testifies that “the account information request would necessarily include account information associated with the overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 386 (emphasis changed). Foss’s linkage between debit and overdraft accounts means that Foss’s debit account information would necessarily be information associated with the overdraft account. See id. ¶ 387; Ex. 1008 ¶ 17. Thus, under the proper construction of the word “of,” Patent Owner’s assertion that Foss’s system could have sent a debit card number, rather than an overdraft account number, effectively proves Petitioner’s inherency argument. In other words, Foss’s system necessarily must have sent either debit account information or overdraft account information as part of its authorization request. Otherwise, Foss’s system would not have been able to determine which overdraft account to authorize. Foss therefore inherently teaches “sending, using the computer-based authorization system, an account information request that includes account information of the separate account.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends that dependent claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka. Pet. 68–84. Petitioner provides a detailed analysis explaining where the combination of Foss and Hirka discloses the limitations in claims 2, 6, and 17–20 and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Foss and Hirka. Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions except to raise the same argument it made for claim 1. PO Resp. 18–19. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence and find them persuasive. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,905,301 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,905,301 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00421 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Gopinathan and Hirka; the Board did not reach anticipation over Gopinathan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on these and other disclosures in Hirka, Mr. Zatkovich testifies, and we agree, that Hirka discloses the debit card aspect of the authentication limitation. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188–189.7 For example, Mr. Zatkovich states that Hirka “demonstrate[s] that a debit card used in the transaction . . . is associated with both a demand deposit account (e.g., a ‘cash account’) and an overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 188. Mr. Zatkovich’s opinions are well-supported by record evidence, including the citations to Hirka we discuss above. Patent Owner does not address these disclosures in Hirka and does not rebut Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony with expert testimony of its own. See PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner’s assertion that “the combination suggests only authenticating a transaction against an available credit limit” entirely overlooks Hirka’s disclosure regarding debit cards and demand deposit 6 No line numbers are provided on Hirka’s first page. 7 Mr. Zatkovich also relies on the teachings of Hirka ’404 (Ex. 1007), which was cited by the Examiner during prosecution. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188. Although Hirka ’404 further supports Mr. Zatkovich’s findings, we view Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony sufficiently supported by the combined teachings of Gopinathan and Hirka. accounts. See id. at 16. Patent Owner’s argument therefore fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive arguments and supporting evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“a POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with payment processing systems, credit card and debit card payment transactions, and industry practices and standards for processing purchase transactions and authenticating participants. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’100 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner proposes constructions for the “authenticating” step of claim 1 as well as for the terms “demand deposit account” and “overdraft account.” PO Resp. 6–7. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions, and Patent Owner does not appear to rely on them in its arguments. See Reply; PO Resp. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner, as supported by the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan and Hirka at least “because doing so would have protected cardholders and card issuing systems from fraud associated with debit cards with overdraft protection.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 191). In other words, in the combination, Hirka’s debit cards with overdraft protection would benefit from Gopinathan’s fraud protection disclosure. See id. And conversely, Gopinathan’s system would benefit from Hirka’s overdraft protection. See id. Patent Owner does not squarely address Petitioner’s rationales to combine. In asserting that “the teachings of Hirka add nothing to the teachings already present in Gopinathan,” Patent Owner overlooks that Hirka would provide the benefit of overdraft protection to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. See PO Resp. 15; Reply 17 (arguing that “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan with Hirka to protect cardholders from fraud ‘associated with debit cards’ and ‘overdraft protection’”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 191. We further agree with Petitioner that Hirka would have provided the benefit of debit cards to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. Reply 19 (“[I]t would have been obvious (and a POSITA would have been motivated to) to modify Gopinathan with the ‘debit card’ system as taught in Hirka in order to expand the reach and applicability of the fraud detection system taught.” (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 654–662)). And vice versa, Gopinathan would have provided the benefit of fraud protection to Hirka’s debit card and overdraft accounts. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171); Pet. 24.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,837,100 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,837,100 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00105 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–13 and 16 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Fells.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“According to our precedent, “if the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under [Becton, Dickinson] factors (e) and (f).” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10; see also Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2023) (vacating a Board decision denying institution where the examiner considered references but never provided any discussion, analysis, or other findings, and the petition provided a sufficient argument on the merits, which the examiner misapprehended or overlooked). Here, in evaluating Becton, Dickinson factor (c), we determine that the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to Fells and Cook is not well developed and neither reference was the basis for a rejection. We also determine, for reasons we discuss more fully below, that InductEV has shown that the Examiner materially erred by overlooking at least the teachings of Fell as applied to claim 1 (Becton, Dickinson factor (e)), and that the Petition presents additional evidence and facts, including testimony by Dr. Allen, that warrant reconsideration of Fells (Becton, Dickinson factor (f)). See infra Section IV.C. Thus, we decline to deny institution discretionarily under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63); Prelim. Resp. 5–6. We agree that, for this decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We discuss the claim terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,027,184
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.