- Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00740 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–13, 15, and 17–20 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds, chiefly because Lambert did not teach system-selected virtual bus stops.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill. We find that Petitioner’s level of skill is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’411 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to the backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system, as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 6–7; see also PO Resp. 20–23. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’411 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 20–23. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent to explain why the art of the ’411 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components in determining the relevant skill in the art. See id.; see also Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’411 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art for a patent that never even uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems, as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems, would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’411 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner
“Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews’s testimony that he has experience in “locationbased systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. This experience demonstrates that Mr. Andrews had at least two years of experience in “optimization modeling.” The parties agree, however, that Mr. Andrews does not have experience working with ride-sharing systems. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s definition includes artisans who lack that particular experience. Specifically, Patent Owner’s definition provides that: A person with an advanced degree (a master’s or Ph.D.) in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics or a related field and a focus on data science, artificial intelligence or operations research would also have been an ordinary artisan in the field of the ’411 patent even if that person lacked two years of specific experience with ride-sharing systems. PO Resp. 20 (emphases added). In other words, even if the first prong of Patent Owner’s definition requires the expert’s experience to be “in the context of ride-sharing systems,” Mr. Andrews would nevertheless satisfy the qualifications of a POSITA under the second prong, which does not require experience with “ride-sharing systems.” See id. This Decision does not turn on the differences between the parties’ characterization of a skilled artisan.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The parties are in agreement. Despite the parties’ briefing on this term, the parties do not dispute the construction of “virtual bus stops.” Absent any controversy, we adopt the parties agreed-upon construction of the term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Specifically, we adopt the parties’ construction that “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” Compare PO Resp. 23, with Pet. Reply 4. We further adopt the parties’ construction that the system need not use artificial intelligence—whatever that may mean—to select the virtual bus stops. Compare PO Sur-reply 5, with Pet. Reply 4; see also supra § III.A (“[W]e need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never even uses the term.”).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“performs actions (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:49–52; 2:63–67, 3:19–20, 3:34–35), we decline to infer from Lambert’s single sentence (id. at 4:17–23) that Lambert’s server is also programmed to perform the step of “dynamically selecting pickup and dropoff locations” (i.e., virtual bus stops). In other words, if Lambert’s server was programmed to select pickup and dropoff locations, as Petitioner would have us believe, we find that Lambert’s disclosure would have stated so. It does not.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 10,197,411 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,197,411 - Evolution Well Services, LLC v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 16, 2023 · IPR2022-00399 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 18–20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the instituted prior-art combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for 3 For Exhibit 2010, Patent Owner cites to reference pagination rather than the exhibit pagination. For consistency, we cite to the same pagination. purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. Also, we note that we would reach the same conclusions herein under Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- 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) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party proffers a definition for any claim term. Pet. 2; generally PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We agree that Mr. Marscher’s cited testimony from another Board proceeding was in regard to variable frequency drives rather than electric fracturing. There, Mr. Marscher testifies that variable frequency drives 6 For Exhibit 2016, Petitioner sometimes cites to exhibit pagination rather than the reference pagination. For consistency, we convert those citations to the reference pagination. 7 Although Patent Owner cites to “EX1027, 181:10-17” (PO Sur-reply 28), the quoted language is in Exhibit 2017. capable of working with large motors were known in the hydraulic fracturing community. See, e.g., Ex. 2017, 181:10–17. Regarding Mr. Marscher’s experience with particular fracturing jobs, the questions posed to Mr. Marscher were whether Mr. Marscher had overseen any fracking operations (Ex. 2016, 120:18) and whether he had designed operating parameters for a drilling job (id. at 125:9–12). The fact that Mr. Marscher has designed equipment for use in fracking operations (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–7), despite not “overseeing” any fracking operations, qualifies him as an expert in this proceeding. Mr. Marscher’s experience is also within Patent Owner’s proffered definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 6–7. We also agree that Patent Owner’s criticism regarding Mr. Marscher’s lack of experience overseeing or designing parameters for a particular hydraulic fracturing job is not germane to the ’049 patent, which does not address such particulars. Similarly, Patent Owner fails to explain persuasively how Mr. Marscher’s opinion regarding the desirability of having spare pumps onsite at a fracturing operation is relevant to his testimony or the ordinary level of skill in the art. Moreover, as correctly noted by Petitioner, the two references relied upon by Patent Owner as “objective documentary evidence” both refer to spare capacity rather than spare fracturing trailers as asserted by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 2025, 2:11–19; Ex. 2026, 3), 10 (citing Ex. 2025, 2:11–19); see also Ex. 2016, 119:11–23 (discussing operating with spare pump capacity).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“would otherwise be needed for two pump-motor sets or to allow one motor to drive two pumps. Petitioner’s declarant provides examples of such additional equipment that would not be needed, including an additional prime mover (presumably a second motor to drive the second pump) and a transfer case (presumably to split power from a single motor into two pumps). Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. We find this argument a persuasive explanation for why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have adopted the pump-motor-pump configuration disclosed by Stout. Patent Owner appears to agree that using a single motor to power two of Zhang’s pumps provides some benefits. PO Resp. 23 (“Of course, one motor replacing two theoretically ‘consolidates’ the driveline by requiring one less piece of machinery.”). Patent Owner’s arguments, summarized above, asserting drawbacks associated with Petitioner’s proposed modification are unavailing, as “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “The fact that [Petitioner’s asserted] motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As summarized above, Petitioner persuasively responds to Patent Owner’s assertions of such lost benefits. Although modifying Zhang to power two pumps with one motor may result in some drawbacks as asserted by Patent Owner, nonetheless, the modification provides other benefits, including reducing the apparatus mounted on a fracturing car. See Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54; Ex. 1005 ¶ 17. Furthermore, “[i]t’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). And Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. King, acknowledges that the pump-motor-pump configuration proposed by Petitioner is a suitable option. See Ex. 1045, 41:1–15. Petitioner also argues that using Stout’s pump-motor-pump configuration in Zhang’s system “would have yielded a predictable result from combining known prior art elements according to known methods.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–57; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). According to Petitioner, “[e]ach element in combination merely performs the same function as it does separately.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). Patent Owner argues that, “[b]ecause Petitioner fails to show that any of the alleged benefits are present in the proposed modification, Petitioner cannot now hide behind a single sentence of case law to fulfil its burden.” PO Resp. 34 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner argues that the Petition does not explain adequately why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “Zhang’s reciprocating ‘fracturing pump’ (which is placed on a trailer and pump[s] fracturing fluid into a wellbore at pressures high enough to fracture rock) and Stout’s subsea, centrifugal pump (which is submerged in the open sea and assists with oil production) to perform the same functions.” Id. (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 87). Patent Owner argues that the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant in this proceeding is inconsistent with his testimony in prior proceedings. Id. at 35. Patent Owner notes that Mr. Marscher relies on several prior art references and argues that “the” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 9,395,049 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,395,049 - DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00392 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims: claims 9–12 lacked a sufficient obviousness showing, and claims 1–8 and 13–19 were disclaimed.
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). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had (i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and three or more years of experience working in television signal processing and satellite communications; (ii) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in television signal processing and satellite communications; or (iii) a doctoral degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in television signal processing and satellite communications. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 13 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Preliminary Response. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, rather than filling a purported gap in Carnero’s disclosure, Petitioner’s proposed combination essentially requires replacing Carnero’s input device 16 with Fisk’s server 56. But neither the Petition nor Dr. Schonfeld explains sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 instead of input unit 16 to input data into the microprocessors of converters 4. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 119. More importantly, setting aside the problem of replacing input unit 16 for the sake of argument, we disagree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 to input that frequency data into signal processing unit 400 “based on requests for programs it receives from the LCUs,” as argued by Petitioner. See Pet. 38 (emphasis added). Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that the requests for programs generated by Fisk’s LCUs are intended to select channels from a predetermined lineup of channels and are not disclosed as being able to change the channels in the predetermined lineup, such that server 56 “can only distribute the decoded programs it is fed.” See Prelim. Resp. 20–21. By way of example, Patent Owner contends that Figure 6 of Fisk depicts server 56 as having three pre-programmed satellite decoders (SAT1, SAT2, and SAT3) that” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,542,715 - PTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00580 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Rousselle and Tsai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Rousselle was presented previously to the Office. Turning to Tsai, we agree that there are similarities between Tsai’s outer retractable units (i.e., scissors-type linkages 2) and the X-shaped retractable units taught by Lee and Byun. Compare Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 10, with Ex. 2003, Fig. 1, and Ex. 2004, Fig. 1A. There are also material differences, however, under Becton, Dickinson factor (a). Namely, the Examiner determined that both Lee and Byun disclosed the claimed central lock. Ex. 2002, 6–7. Tsai, however, discloses that its canopy supporting rods 3 are pivotally secured to head 7 and does not disclose a central lock. Ex. 1005, 7:15–17, Fig. 1. Petitioner thus relies on Rousselle, not Tsai, for teaching the claimed central lock. Pet. 33–48.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“subsequently granted.5 Prelim. Resp. 40. The stay was granted in response to “the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Withdraw Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Global Shade Corporation’s Motion to Stay and to Stay the Action Pending Inter Partes Review.” Ex. 3001, 2. The co-pending litigation is stayed pending final resolution of this proceeding, including any appeals therefrom. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelOther
“Although not identical, the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,669,738 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00412 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable because the Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips combination did not establish the claimed emulator personalization.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On the full record before us, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art should have some level of experience relating to mobile payment technology. For example, the title of the ’787 patent, “Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-commerce and M-commerce,” provides a strong indication that mobile payments are a key aspect of the disclosed invention. See Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’787 patent describes its technical field as: “The present invention is generally related to commerce over networks. Particularly, the present invention is related to electronic purses that can be advantageously used in portable devices configured for both electronic commerce (a.k.a., e-commerce) and mobile commerce (a.k.a., m-commerce),” which reinforces that mobile payment technology is a key aspect. See id. at 1:17–21. In addition, we credit Mr. Smith’s uncontroverted testimony that mobile payment experience is required, which we find persuasive and supported by evidence. See Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 4–10. On the other hand, we agree with Patent Owner that network security is an important aspect of the ’787 patent’s invention. But to the extent that Patent Owner is asserting that mobile payment technology and computer or network security are distinct concepts such that the proper level of ordinary skill would include experience in one or the other but not both, we disagree. Rather, we view the ’787 patent as relating to methods and apparatuses for 1:17–21) and describing security as being an aspect of the commerce (see id. at code (57) (“[A] mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security.”), 2:16–19 (“During a transaction, the security keys are used to establish a secured channel between an embedded e-purse and an SAM (Security Authentication Module) or backend server.”)). For the above reasons, we find Petitioner’s contentions on this issue more persuasive on the full record before us. In order to avoid any doubt that we consider computer or network security to be an element of mobile payment technology, we determine for the purposes of this Decision that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, including computer or network security. In addition, a lack of professional experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art should have some level of experience relating to mobile payment technology. For example, the title of the ’787 patent, “Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-commerce and M-commerce,” provides a strong indication that mobile payments are a key aspect of the disclosed invention. See Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’787 patent describes its technical field as: “The present invention is generally related to commerce over networks. Particularly, the present invention is related to electronic purses that can be advantageously used in portable devices configured for both electronic commerce (a.k.a., e-commerce) and mobile commerce (a.k.a., m-commerce),” which reinforces that mobile payment technology is a key aspect. See id. at 1:17–21. In addition, we credit Mr. Smith’s uncontroverted testimony that mobile payment experience is required, which we find persuasive and supported by evidence. See Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 4–10. On the other hand, we agree with Patent Owner that network security is an important aspect of the ’787 patent’s invention. But to the extent that Patent Owner is asserting that mobile payment technology and computer or network security are distinct concepts such that the proper level of ordinary skill would include experience in one or the other but not both, we disagree. Rather, we view the ’787 patent as relating to methods and apparatuses for 1:17–21) and describing security as being an aspect of the commerce (see id. at code (57) (“[A] mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security.”), 2:16–19 (“During a transaction, the security keys are used to establish a secured channel between an embedded e-purse and an SAM (Security Authentication Module) or backend server.”)). For the above reasons, we find Petitioner’s contentions on this issue more persuasive on the full record before us. In order to avoid any doubt that we consider computer or network security to be an element of mobile payment technology, we determine for the purposes of this Decision that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, including computer or network security. In addition, a lack of professional experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that Mr. Gomez’s testimony should be given little to no weight, Patent Owner argues that Mr. Gomez is well qualified under both proposed levels of ordinary skill. Sur-reply 4–5. During the hearing, Petitioner modified its position somewhat, arguing that Mr. Gomez’s “testimony should be accorded little to no weight, particularly where he weighs in on issues specific to financial transactions and smart cards.” Tr. 8:15–18 (emphasis added). Petitioner stated further that “[w]e’re simply asking the Board to take into the account each individual expert’s background knowledge on a per issue basis.” Id. at 59:26–60:2. Based on the full record, we disagree that all of Mr. Gomez’s testimony” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms, except “emulator” and “midlet,” should have their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 12. As to the claim terms “emulator” and “midlet,” Petitioner contends that the ’787 patent expressly defines those terms “so those definitions are controlling.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:47–50, 5:20–22). Patent Owner argues that “claim construction is not required to resolve any issues” in this proceeding. PO Resp. 9. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim term to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 9,189,787 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,189,787 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00413 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under § 103 over Dua and GlobalPlatform, with Smart Card Handbook and Thibadeau added for claims 7–12.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Here, the parties’ definitions differ in one significant way. Petitioner requires one year of more specific experience, i.e., mobile payment experience, while Patent Owner requires more experience, but that experience can be more general related to computer and network security. We agree with Petitioner that mobile payment technology is an important aspect of the claimed invention and should be included in the definition. However, we also find that Petitioner’s definition is flexible enough to address the concerns of Patent Owner because, as the definition explains “[l]ack of professional experience [can] be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’009 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below.2 See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“is “essential,” Petitioner has still shown a motivation to combine because the proposed combination does not “discard” SIP as Patent Owner contends. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “argues that a [person of ordinary skill] would discard all of Dua’s SIP teachings and use GlobalPlatform’s system for personalization instead.” PO Resp. 12. However, we agree with Petitioner that this mischaracterizes the proposed combination. See Reply 6–7. As the Petition states, Petitioner relies on Dua’s SIP session to establish the initial connection between the endpoints (between the smart card and a server) and download the application and send application identifying information to the server. See Pet. 22 (describing GlobalPlatform’s receipts transmitted “via a wireless SIP session”), 23 (downloading extensions “during a SIP session”). As Mr. Smith credibly testifies, “Dua teaches utilizing the SIP protocol to connect endpoints,” and “Dua’s SIP networking protocol for connecting endpoints functions like a ‘pipe’ to connect the two endpoints (e.g., smart card and server or host such as Dua’s WCM) together over a network.” Ex. 1046 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶ 15. Moreover, as Mr. Smith clarifies in his Supplemental Declaration, “Dua’s SIP protocol constructs the connection between endpoints, and GlobalPlatform establishes a secure channel within that connection for smart are ‘not intended, in any way, to limit the scope of the present invention[,]” or “[t]he foregoing disclosure and description of the present invention is illustrative and explanatory thereof” as insufficient). card specific communications.” Ex. 1046 ¶ 14; see also Pet. 24–26 (discussing the use of GlobalPlatform to create the secure channel). We find that Mr. Smith credibly testifies that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that in the combination, GlobalPlatform’s processes relying on the exchange of Application Protocol Data Unit (“APDU”) messages would be sent over Dua’s SIP endpoint-to-endpoint connection (“pipe”) because, (1) SIP is derived from HTTP, (2) APDUs are the standard messaging protocol for smart cards, and (3) it was known to transmit APDUs over HTTP.” Ex. 1046 ¶ 16. Mr. Smith supports this assertion with detailed testimony relying on extensive citations to Dua, Ex. 1046 ¶ 17, GlobalPlatform, id. ¶¶ 18, 20, Chen5 (id. ¶ 19), and Thibadeau, id. ¶ 21. We find this testimony was reasoned, detailed, and entitled to substantial weight. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown that in the proposed combination Dua’s SIP protocol would not be “discarded,” but rather, would remain an integral part of the combination. See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 14–21.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“(b) “Secure Element” Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to show that the combination teaches or suggests a “secure element,” as required by the claims. PO Resp. 18–20. Patent Owner argues that, although “a smart card may be a secure element . . . the ’009 patent does not state or suggest that all smart cards are secure elements.” Id. at 19. Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would therefore understand that a smart card may be a secure element only if it provides the necessary security, such as by being tamper-resistant.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 72–75). Patent Owner contends that “[w]hile some smart cards meet this definition, not every smart card will, and [Petitioner] does not show otherwise.” Id. We find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Dua and GlobalPlatform accounts for this limitation. To begin with, we do not find the testimony of Mr. Gomez on this point to be credible or entitled to much weight. In his Declaration, Mr. Gomez contends that “a secure element must include a heightened level of security and be tamper-proof,” Ex. 2007 ¶ 73, and that “while some secure elements may be smart cards, not all smart cards are secure elements,” id. ¶ 71. Yet, on cross examination, Mr. Gomez repeatedly contended that smart cards and secure elements were “distinctly different” and “separate and unrelated.” Ex. 1045, 53:16–54:1. Mr. Gomez continued to assert that “the common understanding was that a secure element . . . has a very strong level of security beyond what you would normally find . . . in products at the time, such as smart cards.” Id. at 55:22–56:8. This cross examination testimony is inconsistent with his prior testimony and with the Specification of the ’009 patent, which explains that the secure element “may be in [the] form of a smart card.” Ex. 1001, 6:59. There is no indication in the Specification that a “secure element” was a special product “beyond” what was available at the time. If anything, the Specification indicates that the term “secure element” is not intended to capture something different than a smart card, but rather a broad genus of items that include a smart card. See id. at 6:59–61 (“the [secure element] may be in [the] form of a smart card, an integrated circuit (IC) or a software module upgradable by overwriting some of all of the components therein.”). Even if we accept the Patent Owner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would . . . understand that a smart card may be a secure element only if it provides the necessary security, such as by being tamper-resistant,”6 we find that Petitioner has shown that the GlobalPlatform-compliant smart cards meet this standard. As Mr. Smith explains in great detail, supported by numerous citations to the prior art, GlobalPlatform-compliant smart cards have and support numerous features designed to make them tamper-resistant. See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 30–36. We find this testimony wellreasoned, well-supported, and give it substantial weight. Patent Owner argues that the use of a key set cannot make a secure element tamper resistant because a key set is separately recited in the claim. However, Mr. Gomez confirmed that “a key-based encryption scheme” was “one way” to satisfy the claim term “secure element.” Ex. 1045, 57:7–11. Indeed, the only security for the “secure element” mentioned in the Specification is that the secure element “in the mobile device is installed with a set of default 6 Patent Owner and Mr. Gomez have repeatedly stated that no construction of this term is necessary. See Tr. 49:3–18; Ex. 1045, 55:9–56:9. We find no need to construe it because we find that even under the “understanding” that Patent Owner has offered the prior art teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“is “essential,” Petitioner has still shown a motivation to combine because the proposed combination does not “discard” SIP as Patent Owner contends. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “argues that a [person of ordinary skill] would discard all of Dua’s SIP teachings and use GlobalPlatform’s system for personalization instead.” PO Resp. 12. However, we agree with Petitioner that this mischaracterizes the proposed combination. See Reply 6–7. As the Petition states, Petitioner relies on Dua’s SIP session to establish the initial connection between the endpoints (between the smart card and a server) and download the application and send application identifying information to the server. See Pet. 22 (describing GlobalPlatform’s receipts transmitted “via a wireless SIP session”), 23 (downloading extensions “during a SIP session”). As Mr. Smith credibly testifies, “Dua teaches utilizing the SIP protocol to connect endpoints,” and “Dua’s SIP networking protocol for connecting endpoints functions like a ‘pipe’ to connect the two endpoints (e.g., smart card and server or host such as Dua’s WCM) together over a network.” Ex. 1046 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶ 15. Moreover, as Mr. Smith clarifies in his Supplemental Declaration, “Dua’s SIP protocol constructs the connection between endpoints, and GlobalPlatform establishes a secure channel within that connection for smart are ‘not intended, in any way, to limit the scope of the present invention[,]” or “[t]he foregoing disclosure and description of the present invention is illustrative and explanatory thereof” as insufficient). card specific communications.” Ex. 1046 ¶ 14; see also Pet. 24–26 (discussing the use of GlobalPlatform to create the secure channel). We find that Mr. Smith credibly testifies that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that in the combination, GlobalPlatform’s processes relying on the exchange of Application Protocol Data Unit (“APDU”) messages would be sent over Dua’s SIP endpoint-to-endpoint connection (“pipe”) because, (1) SIP is derived from HTTP, (2) APDUs are the standard messaging protocol for smart cards, and (3) it was known to transmit APDUs over HTTP.” Ex. 1046 ¶ 16. Mr. Smith supports this assertion with detailed testimony relying on extensive citations to Dua, Ex. 1046 ¶ 17, GlobalPlatform, id. ¶¶ 18, 20, Chen5 (id. ¶ 19), and Thibadeau, id. ¶ 21. We find this testimony was reasoned, detailed, and entitled to substantial weight. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown that in the proposed combination Dua’s SIP protocol would not be “discarded,” but rather, would remain an integral part of the combination. See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 14–21.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 9,240,009 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,240,009 - Hunter’S Manufacturing Company, Inc. D/B/A Tenpoint Crossbow Technologies v. Ravin Crossbows, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 10, 2023 · IPR2023-00407 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claim 1 on all asserted grounds because Grounds 7 and 8 met the reasonable-likelihood threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_dis trict_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Interim Procedure”). The Interim Procedure explains that “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure 3 (internal footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020- 01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”)). The Interim Procedure explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB . . . [and] allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8. In this proceeding, Petitioner offers a stipulation employing language nearly identical to that prescribed in the Interim Procedure: “Petitioner hereby stipulates that it will not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in this Petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised as to claim 1 in this Petition.” Pet. 6–7.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim Interpretation In an inter partes review, we construe claims using the same standard applied in a district court. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“’015 Patent pertains “would be a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows” and “would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 17). Patent Owner states: “Solely for purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSA’).” Prelim. Resp. 2. For the purposes of the present Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the ’015 Patent. E.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The Federal Circuit has explained that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner relies upon a portion of KSR in which the Supreme Court stated: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Yet, in the analysis of Ground 2, Petitioner does not address the predicate factual determinations that the Supreme Court identifies — e.g., that there would have been “a design need or market pressure,” that there were “identified” and “predictable” solutions. Id. Therefore, based upon the present record, and for the purposes of the present Decision, Petitioner does not provide a sufficient reason for modifying Stanziale ’302, in order satisfy the identified limitation of claim 1. F.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,354,015 - Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00286 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to teach or render obvious system-selected virtual bus stops and a pair of associated stops.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Discussion We have considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, and we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’824 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 10–11; see also PO Resp. 31–32. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’824 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 31–32. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent in determining the relevant skill in the art to explain why the art of the ’824 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components. See id.; Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’824 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims, without support, that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that an artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’824 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Having addressed the relevant skill in the art, we address Patent Owner’s contention that Mr. Andrews “is not qualified to offer opinions concerning the artificial intelligence components of a ride-sharing system that are at issue in the ’824 patent.” PO Resp. 37. As discussed previously, we disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and have adopted Petitioner’s position. Patent Owner does not offer an opinion as to whether Mr. Andrews would be qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition. The record reflects that Mr. Andrews possessed an advanced degree in electronic engineering, had a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems, and had more than two years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces, and databases at the time of the ’824 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19; Ex. 1009. Therefore, we find that Mr. Andrews is qualified to offer opinions as a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’824 patent under the relevant definition. Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews testimony that he has experience in “location-based systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. Furthermore, given Mr. Andrews’s advanced degree, Patent Owner’s definition would allow Mr. Andrews to have less than two years of experience in the pertinent fields. PO Resp. 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Under these circumstances, where the parties now agree that the ordinary meaning should apply to “virtual bus stops” and the district court adopted the same approach, we see no reason to depart from applying the ordinary meaning in this proceeding. We therefore apply the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by the parties, where “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” As to the construction of dependent claim 8, we agree with Patent Owner that we need not formally construe the term to resolve the issues before us. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As to Petitioner’s remaining arguments, we do not read artificial intelligence or other limitations into the claims as Petitioner warns against, and Petitioner does not argue for any specific construction in relation to these arguments that would require us to resolve a specific claim construction dispute. See Pet. Reply 4–10.” slip op. at 16
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1004, 4:17–23. The Petition does not cite to any declarant support, additional prior art, other embodiments in Lambert, or any obviousness analysis when addressing “virtual bus stops.” See Pet. 25. Although for later aspects of claim 1 the Petition relies on Poykko and an obviousness analysis when arguing that it would have been obvious to configure Lambert’s server to operate in a certain way (e.g., to access memory that includes a database of locations as taught by Poykko), the Petition does not rely on such an analysis when first addressing “virtual bus stops” alone. See id. The combination of Lambert’s statement above with Poykko and other aspects of Lambert, potentially with allegedly obvious modifications of Lambert, may serve as the basis of Petitioner’s arguments for these later limitations involving “virtual bus stops,” but these later allegations do not reach back and redefine Petitioner’s more limited argument with respect to “virtual bus stops” in isolation.8 To the extent Petitioner argues in its Reply that a combination of Lambert and Poykko or other obviousness arguments 8 In our Institution Decision, we noted that Patent Owner, at that stage of the proceeding, failed to properly address Petitioner’s proposed combination of Lambert and Poykko for various “virtual bus stop” limitations. Inst. Dec. 22–23. That said, we do not view the Petition’s arguments and evidence as to “virtual bus stops” limitation in isolation, prior to addressing the “memory” limitation and adding Poykko and obviousness to the analysis, as relying on a combination of Lambert and Poykko or obviousness. See Pet. 25. satisfy the “virtual bus stops” limitation, we agree with Patent Owner that this introduces an improper new theory in the Reply. See PO Sur-reply 20– 22.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,816,824 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,816,824 - Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. And Sascha ConnellyInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00152 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 42). Patent Owner proposes claim constructions for “set of pixels,” “pixels that lie along a link/length of pathway between the starting point and the ending point,” and “in a loop.” Prelim. Resp. 17–28. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, the disclosure of AEM that Petitioner relies on for teaching selecting certain pixels to be transparent or nontransparent pertains to “compositing,” i.e., creating a composite image from multiple images. Ex. 1003, 315–16. AEM states specifically: “To create a composite from multiple images, you can make parts of one or more of the images transparent so that other images can show through.” Id. at 315. Thus, each pixel in the composite image is either transparent or nontransparent such that every pixel is “selected” under Petitioner’s usage of the term “selecting.” The possibility that some of these pixels, in theory, could extend along a non-linear motion path of a Deform pin is mere happenstance—we are not directed to any disclosure in AEM of actually selecting a set of pixels (either transparent or nontransparent) that extend along a non-linear motion path. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a claim limitation that requires contiguity). We are not persuaded on the record before us that AEM’s disclosure of designating pixels as transparent or nontransparent satisfies selecting a first set of pixels extending along a nonlinear pathway. Second, Petitioner’s argument relies on AEM teaching that “AECS6 necessarily allows a user . . . to select any or all pixels of the layer to be nontransparent and thus included in the layer’s mesh to be moved and animated.” Pet. 21. We disagree, however, that AEM discloses selecting pixels to be nontransparent and including these pixels in a mesh to be moved and animated. That AECS6 arguably allows selected nontransparent pixels to be included in a mesh is not sufficient to establish that AEM discloses doing so. Petitioner contends that AECS6 and the screenshots of AECS6 created by Dr. Greenspun establish the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art but does not explain adequately why AECS6’s alleged capability would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to understand AEM to teach selecting pixels of a layer to be nontransparent and including the selected pixels in the layer’s mesh. See Pet. 17 n.6 (quoting Qualcomm, 24 F.4th at 1376). Again, any pixels selected to be nontransparent being included in a mesh is mere happenstance.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,558,342 - PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01504 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that each challenged claim would have been obvious over the cited combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“trial. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (authorizing institution of a trial under particular circumstances, but not requiring institution under any circumstances); 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (stating “the Board will authorize the review to proceed”) (emphasis added); cf. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261, 273 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an [inter partes review] proceeding”). Petitioner anticipates potential discretionary denial issues under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d). Pet. 70–73. On this record, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On this record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Dua and Rosener teaches all the limitations of claim 1.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the Kyriakakis Declaration Petitioner alleges a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in wireless (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal because we are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’852 patent.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Petitioner, asserts construction is unnecessary and does not propose any term for construction. Pet. 11 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). On this record, no disputed term is identified. We preliminarily determine that no term requires construction to resolve this dispute. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. Accordingly, we proceed on the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,848,852
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.