- Microsoft Corporation / Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00531 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Flore under § 102.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The anticipation inquiry takes into account the literal teachings of the prior art reference and inferences the ordinarily skilled person would draw from it. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner defines the person of ordinary skill in the art as follows: “As of 2008, a person of ordinary skill in the art [POSA or POSITA] . . . of the ’988 patent’s field would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience related to telecommunications networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional graduate education . . . could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner “applies this definition of a POSITA for its analysis.” PO Resp. 18. Based on the complete record now before us, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art and the ’988 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also does not persuasively explain why we should disregard the ’988 patent’s exception to peer-to-peer connections, that is, “in not all cases will the DMA servers 406 be able to participate as peers in an IP network.” Id. at 9:12–13. Patent Owner’s assertions that when “DMA servers are able to connect as peers with an existing DMA network, they do so,” and that the “new DMA server is just the initial node in a new peer-to-peer network,” do not find support in the specification. See PO Resp. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:9–24, Fig. 6). Instead, Patent Owner cites a portion of the specification that explains “in not all cases will the DMA servers 406 be able to participate as peers,” such as in rural areas, in which case “DMA gateways . . . enable DMA servers to communicate with one another when one or more of the DMA serves cannot participate directly in the IP network.” Ex. 1001, 9:12–21. Nothing in this passage suggests that a DMA server not acting as a peer would merely be a temporary condition and that once able to connect as a peer, it would do so. Such reasoning is gloss added by Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Cooklev, whose testimony on this point mirrors the Response. Ex. 2021 ¶ 69. We do not find Dr. Cooklev’s testimony credible on this point because the testimony does not align with the ’988 patent specification.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Our reviewing court “has repeatedly cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Absent disclaimer or lexicography, the plain meaning of the claim controls.” Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is no disclaimer or lexicography in the specification that requires us to limit the claims as Patent Owner wishes. We agree with Petitioner that the passages upon which Patent Owner relies use non-limiting, exemplary language. See Reply 6. For example, Patent Owner relies heavily on Figure 4 and its accompanying description, but Figure 4 “illustrates a non-limiting, exemplary embodiment.” PO Resp. 19–25; Ex. 1001, 6:31. Thus, Figure 4’s references to a “peer-to-peer connection,” “switch and route call[]” functionality, that “controlling logic can be distributed,” and “self-healing and redundant” wireless coverage, for example, do not limit the claim. See Ex. 1001, 6:48, 52, 64, 66 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,855,988 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,855,988 - 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 - 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 - PTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00085 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, and 15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We disagree with Patent Owner. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation.”8 The Director’s Memorandum explains that, when a petitioner makes a Sotera-type stipulation, “it mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB” and “[w]ith such a stipulation, if an IPR or PGR is instituted, the grounds the PTAB resolves will differ from those present in 8 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretio nary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Director’s Memorandum”). the parallel district court litigation.” Director’s Memorandum 7 (citing Sotera, IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19). Pursuant to the Director’s Memorandum, we “will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Id. Because Petitioner provides a Sotera-type stipulation, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision as it appears consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). Petitioner’s proposed definition appears overly restrictive, as it requires a graduate degree in a narrow field of engineering or equivalent experience. We find that a bachelor’s degree with the accompanying experience proposed by Patent Owner more closely aligns with the prior art of record and the ’659 patent. We note, however, there is some overlap in the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art because Patent Owner’s proposal includes “at least” a bachelor’s degree, which would encompass Petitioner’s master’s degree as well. Prelim. Resp. 19. Nonetheless, our determination herein would be the same under either party’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s claim construction. By using the word “or,” the plain and ordinary meaning of “prone, kneeling, or standing” is that only one must be satisfied to meet the claim. See, e.g., SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The disjunctive ‘or’ plainly designates that a series describes alternatives.”). Furthermore, and although claims are read in light of the specification, limitations in a specification are not read into a claim. In re van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even if the Specification describes embodiments in which the user can begin in a prone position and then transition to a kneeling or standing position, as Patent Owner points out (see Prelim. Resp. 20), the claim does not recite the term “transitioning,” and we do not read the terms “each of” or “substantially flat surface” into this claim limitation. For example, the claim does not recite a “substantially flat” top surface and Patent Owner’s attempt to infer this structure into the claim is not supported under the law. See id. at 29–30. For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and construe “prone, kneeling, or standing” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as alternatives, and the prior art need only show one to satisfy this aspect of the claim.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,586,659 - PTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00086 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining Fintiv denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in an inter partes review). slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“1. “wherein a user can be disposed on the top surface of the flotation device in a prone, kneeling, or standing position” With respect to the claim term “wherein a user can be disposed on the top surface of the flotation device in a prone, kneeling, or standing position,” Patent Owner points to passages of the Specification, arguing that all three positions are possible. Prelim. Resp. 19–21 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstr., 4:13–17, 4:33–40; Ex. 2006 ¶ 18). We do not agree with Patent’s Owner proposed construction because even if the Specification discloses that all three positions are possible, that is not what the plain language of the claim requires. Claim 1 recites “or,” which means that a user can be disposed on the top surface of the flotation device in any one of the three positions. See, e.g., SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The disjunctive ‘or’ plainly designates that a series describes alternatives.”). Patent Owner does not identify any definition or disclaimer that would modify this plain meaning. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, we agree with Petitioner and apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase “wherein a user can be disposed on the top surface of the flotation device in a prone, kneeling, or standing position,” to construe “prone, kneeling, or standing” as alternatives, and the prior art need only show one to satisfy this aspect of the claim.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Neither party explains how or why its particular proposal impacts the issues before us in this proceeding. We find that a bachelor’s degree with the accompanying experience proposed by Patent Owner more closely aligns with the prior art of record and the ’044 patent. We note, however, there is some overlap in the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art because Patent Owner’s proposal includes “at least” a bachelor’s degree, which would encompass Petitioner’s master’s degree as well. Prelim. Resp. 10. Nonetheless, our determination herein would be the same under either party’s definition.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“As the Board has held in a precedential decision, “at the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,359,044 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of all the challenged claims of the ’654 patent for the reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base our final written decision on the full trial record.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“First, although InductEV disagrees that the word antenna would exclude coils found within a transformer-like structure, InductEV does not appear to dispute WiTricity’s proposed IEEE definition of antenna as “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See Prelim. Reply 2–3. We preliminary adopt that construction. But we agree with InductEV that nothing in this construction would exclude a coil found within a transformerlike structure, so long as it either transmits or receives radio waves. We also note that, although WiTricity relies on the generation of near-field flux lines into free space as a way to distinguish an antenna from a transformer, WiTricity does not point to any testimonial or other evidence that a transformer coil does not generate near-field flux lines into free space. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8–16; Ex. 2001, 20–37. Second, we agree with InductEV that the preliminary evidence does not suggest (and WiTricity does not explicitly argue) that the terms transmitting antenna or receiving antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 2. The ’654 patent does refer to a “coupling-mode region” consisting of the area around antennas 114 and 118 of Figure 1 in which “near-field coupling may occur.” Ex. 1001, 2:38–40; see supra Section II.A. But this is the region in which “efficient energy transfer occurs by coupling a large portion of the energy in the near-field of the transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna rather than propagating most of the energy in an electromagnetic wave to the far field”—not a defining characteristic of either the transmitting or receiving antenna. See Ex. 1001, 2:31–38. Thus, for this decision, we preliminarily adopt InductEV’s proposed construction of transmitting antenna as “an antenna that transmits energy” and the proposed construction of receiving antenna as “an antenna that receives energy.” Prelim. Reply 1. This appears to be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms and their usage in the ’654 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:26–40. As this is a preliminary construction solely for this decision, the parties may continue to offer evidence and arguments as to these or other claim terms at trial. We do not need to construe any of the other terms explicitly for this decision. 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 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Alternatively, if WiTricity is correct that alignment based on the degree of coupling is not explicitly applicable to the “parked” embodiment, the preliminary evidence suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute such alignment for alignment based on the output of the sensors that Ross discloses, such as optical sensors, and that this would have predictably led to aligning the two coils regardless of whether the vehicle is parked temporarily on a roadway or parked in a loading/unloading zone. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 246–248 (opining that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that one may obtain the “optimum lateral position” of the vehicle coil by sensing the degree of coupling “[i]nstead of” using sensors (quoting Ex. 1007, 13:21))); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[I]f there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.” (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). We also find persuasive, on the present record, InductEV’s argument that claim 13 does not require control based on the degree of inductive coupling while the receiving antenna is being guided into the recited “first alignment position.” See Prelim. Reply 5. Whereas limitation 13[b] requires such control after the receiving antenna is already in the “first alignment position” (e.g., during fine alignment while Ross’s vehicle is parked in the loading/unloading zone), there is no such requirement in limitation 13[a] while the receiving antenna is being moved to the “first alignment position” (e.g., while Ross’s vehicle leaves the electrified roadway and parks in the loading/unloading zone).” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,466,654 - Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Medivis’s rehearing request, leaving in place the decision that claims 1–6 and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references’ public accessibility was not established.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented in turn.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“accessibility, except the references Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves. This is insufficient and tantamount to submitting no proof of public accessibility. To find public accessibility, we must determine that a “document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art[,] exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoted in Dec. 26–27. Petitioner has insufficiently explained, by a preponderance of the evidence, how Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves answer the question of whether they have been disseminated or otherwise made available to those of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we did not overlook or misapprehend any evidence of public accessibility on pages 29–30 of the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“declaration by reference, we exercised our discretion to address a portion of it in our Decision. Dec. 30–31. We did so because we noted that his testimony was “particularly deficient for [the 3D Slicer] reference.” Id. at 30. Petitioner now asserts that in doing so, we “misapprehended or overlooked the logic that application documentation” like 3D Slicer’s “must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application.” Req. 7. But Petitioner’s assertion that “application documentation must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application” is a new argument, not raised in the Petition or Reply. Even if Petitioner’s assertion were correct, it falls far short of the evidence required to prove that 3D Slicer was actually disseminated to interested members of the public. See, e.g., Weber, 92 F.4th at 1068. Thus, Petitioner’s argument fails to persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended anything.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,004,271 - Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00045 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable over Jones and/or Doo; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the obviousness grounds lacked adequate motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“2. “augmentation tag” Petitioner proposes the following construction for “augmentation tag”” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Accordingly, Petitioner persuades us that Jones discloses limitation” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reasoning why the POSITA would be motivated to combine, ‘what was known in the art at the relevant time,’ whatever that may be.” PO Resp. 42. We agree. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Rather, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 10,945,807 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,945,807 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 4, 2024 · IPR2022-01592 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 8–12, 14–18, and 20 are unpatentable: Rosenberger anticipates all challenged claims, and Rosenberger combined with Kim renders claim 11 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Decided for petitioner
“would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as articulated by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and subsequent cases. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the standard set forth in Phillips, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims.” Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co. Ltd., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, it must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” and “clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Likewise, disavowal occurs only when there is a clear and unmistakable intent to limit the invention or exclude a particular feature from the claimed invention. Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1353. And, there is a “heavy presumption,” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as articulated by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and subsequent cases. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the standard set forth in Phillips, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims.” Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co. Ltd., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, it must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” and “clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Likewise, disavowal occurs only when there is a clear and unmistakable intent to limit the invention or exclude a particular feature from the claimed invention. Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1353. And, there is a “heavy presumption,” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 7:4–7, 21:57–67, 24:13–16, 29:18–20. We do not dispute that, without the microphone or some similarly functioning component, the device could not detect the input. However, Petitioner’s interpretation would be equally applicable if the limitation were “detect an input” and fails to give meaning to the modifier “voice” in the phrase “detecting a voice input” as recited. The abstract of the ’311 Patent explains that the device “detects a voice input” and “determines a first score of a criterion associated with the voice input.” Ex. 1001, code (57). Determining a score for the detected voice input implies some level of identification of the input as a voice, and not mere perceiving or sensing by the microphone. And, the Specification states that “in accordance with some implementations, a voiceactivated device determines whether the surrounding noise is sufficiently interfering with detection of spoken hotwords for waking up the device . . . or other spoken voice inputs.” Id. at 5:65–6:5. Thus, the ’311 Patent discloses that the device distinguishes between background noise and the detection of specific voice inputs like hotwords. We conclude that the ordinary and common meaning of “detecting a voice input” in the context of the claims and Specification of the ’311 Patent requires the device to identify the input as voice.6 In sum, we conclude that the ordinary and common meaning of “detecting a voice input” requires a process for identifying that an audio input includes voice and does not exclude speech recognition.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Id. at 4:6–14, 8:17–24, 9:57–61, 14:10–18. Cited Figure 4 is a flowchart in which the first step is “Speech Trigger or Command Recognized.”7 In these passages, Rosenberger discloses a method and device utilizing embedded software and circuitry that receives and recognizes a spoken trigger phrase (such as “Hello Voice Control”) and takes action based thereon. Thus, Rosenberger discloses a process for identifying that an audio input includes voice or “detecting a voice input” as recited.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,024,311 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,024,311 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 15, 2024 · IPR2022-01594 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–13, and 15 are unpatentable: Rosenberger anticipates all challenged claims, and Rosenberger combined with Kim renders claims 5, 10, and 15 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“PO Resp. 12–15; PO Sur-reply 1–6. Petitioner also does not argue either lexicography or disavowal. Tr. 8:9–17. We do not find either (1) lexicography or (2) disavowal, because (1) there is no clearly set forth definition of “detecting a voice input’ in the ’128 patent or (2) evidence of a clear and unmistakable intent to disavow the ordinary and customary meaning of “detecting a voice input.” Accordingly, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of “detecting the voice input” in light of the language of the claims, specification, and file history (the intrinsic evidence). Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. In the Response and Reply, the parties assert different views of the ordinary and customary meaning of “detecting the voice input” as recited in the independent claims of the ’128 patent.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a “POSITA [(person of ordinary skill in the art)] in the technology field of the ’128 Patent would have had the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2–4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63– 65.). Patent Owner does not present a position on the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See generally PO Resp. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’128 patent and the cited prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Id. at 4:6–14, 8:17–24, 9:57–61, 14:10–18. Cited Figure 4 is a flowchart in which the first step is “Speech Trigger or Command Recognized.”12 In these passages, Rosenberger discloses a method and device utilizing embedded software and circuitry that receives and recognizes a spoken trigger phrase (such as “Hello Voice Control”) and takes action based thereon. Thus, Rosenberger discloses a process for identifying that an audio input includes voice or “detecting a voice input” as recited.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 63, 65–66. We find Petitioner’s articulated reasons for combining the relevant teachings of Rosenberger and Kim to be well-supported. The Response contains this single sentence criticizing Petitioner’s showing of motivation to combine: “[A]ll of the Petition’s motivations to combine are clearly rooted in hindsight because, in Rosenberger, only devices that recognize a particular command (i.e., the devices that a voice command is intended for in the disclosure of Kim) need to participate in the arbitration process.” PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 87). This argument is not developed or explained and it contradicts the disclosure of Rosenberger. In Rosenberger, all the devices that detect and recognize a voice input (the trigger phrase) participate in the coordination or arbitration process. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 9:57–10:33. This argument lacks merit. We find that the combination of Rosenberger and Kim teaches all the limitation of claims 5, 10, and 15 of the ’128 patent and that a motivation to combine the relevant teachings of these references existed. We conclude that a clear preponderance of the evidence establishes that claims 5, 10, and 15 of the ’128 patent are unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 9,812,128 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,812,128
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.