- PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01235 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 6–11, and 14–16 on all proposed grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the §103 ground over Mañosa and Patel.
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), 815 F.3d at 1363 (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 inter partes review). slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedPrinted publication not establishedMixed
“[T]here is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under § 42.108(c) or any other authority. . . . [T]he burden is on the petitioner to 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.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“May” expresses a possibility. The Specification reflects this interpretation of “may” when it states that “[i]n one embodiment, the organic material is not lyotropic. Thus, the organic material may not be a phospholipid.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill would understand from this that the organic material “may not be” a phospholipid if the organic material is not lyotropic. It follows that if the organic material is lyotropic, then the organic material may be a phospholipid. Reading the statement “[t]he organic material may not be . . . a phospholipid” (id. at 8:59–63) in light of the earlier stated possibility that the organic material may be a phospholipid if the organic material is lyotropic, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “may not be” as excluding phospholipids under some conditions, not under all conditions. Taking the Specification’s discussion about phospholipids as exemplifying the permissive nature of the word “may,” we are unpersuaded that in stating that “[t]he organic material may not be [PMMA], a polyvinylidene difluoride-containing polymer, such as [PVDF] or PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, or a phospholipid, such as [DHPE]’” (Ex. 1001, 8:59–63), the specification “contains a clear and unmistakable disavowal of the compounds PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE” and “disclaims the listed compounds” from the “organic material” of the claims under all conditions, as Patent Owner argues. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Moreover, the claims themselves limit the “organic material” only to the extent that it is “barocaloric cooling or heating agent” and can perform in the manner claimed. See Ex. 1001, claim 1, supra. As broadly worded, the claims do not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE per se from the group of organic materials employed by the claimed method. Adopting Patent Owner’s construction would impermissibly import a limitation (i.e., not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE) into the claims. For the reasons stated, at this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner’s broad construction of “organic material.” We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction whereby PMMA, PVDF, PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE are excluded from the scope of the claim term “organic material.” The parties are invited to address this issue further during trial, if desired. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner shows that (a) Mañosa (i.e., inorganic compounds such as Ni-Mn-In, Gd5Si2Ge2, and La-Fe-Co-Si) and (b) Patel (i.e., PVDF-TrFE- CTFE) teach materials exhibiting inverse BCEs. Pet. 59 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1007, pages 4–8; Ex. 1009, 1, 4–5; Ex. 1004 ¶ 108). In our view, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently shows (via the five reasons listed supra) why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the barocaloric cooling or heating agent of Patel for that taught in Mañosa, thereby reaching the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. Cf. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (U.S., 2007) (“The Court recognized that when 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.”)” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,230,656 - Profrac Holding Corporation / U.S. Well Services, LLC v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · PGR2023-00023 · APJ Brent M Dougal · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under §101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more; the Board did not reach the asserted §103 grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a B.S. in Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science, or Metallurgical Engineering or an equivalent field and at least two years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including experience with process control systems. Further, a person with additional education but less professional experience, and vice-versa, may qualify. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 4). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’058 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In post-grant review, we construe claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2022). Neither Petitioner, nor Patent Owner, provides constructions of any claim terms. Pet. 25; PO Resp 6–7. We determine that no terms need to be construed. 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 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“formation response data comprising data from one or more downhole sensors or surface sensors” and “selecting a representative system model based on the received formation response data and sequence of stimuli” are mental processes. We determine that the record supports that they are. The Background of the ’058 patent supports our finding that these steps are mental processes. In particular, the ’058 patent teaches that it was known that “a technician may review sensor data” and that “a representative system model may be used for determining pump settings based on sensor information; however, the representative system model is typically manually selected by a technician based on observed sensor data.” Id. at 22 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:9–26); see also Dec. 23–24 (preliminarily finding these claimed patent). Regarding the claimed step of “controlling an electrical fracturing pump based on the representative system model,” Patent Owner does argue, and we agree, that it is not a mental process in that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have performed it in the human mind. PO Resp. 27. We also agree that the Petition does not expressly argue that the step of “generating a sequence of stimuli for application to a well environment” is a mental process. However, the ’058 patent explains that these two steps may be performed via a generic computer. Ex. 1001, 6:6–36, 6:65–7:33, 8:56–9:28. Requiring the use of a computer does not change the focus of the claim away from being directed towards an abstract idea. “[T]he inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“As we have explained, ‘the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’” (quoting Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). See also Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, 107 F.4th 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2024). (“We are not persuaded that claim 1 cannot be directed to an abstract idea even if certain steps cannot be completed in the mind or by pen and paper. . . . [R]equiring the use of a computer alone does not change the focus of a claim directed towards an abstract idea into one directed towards ‘a specific improvement to computer functionality.’ In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“4. Step 2B Under Step 2B, only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. applying the … abstract idea using techniques that are, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, well-understood, routine, and conventional.’ cxLoyalty Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 986 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021).” Pet. 97. The Petition cites the Background of the ’058 patent to support its argument that the specification admits that many of the claimed steps were known. Id. at 91. In the oil and gas industry, electric frac pumps are often controlled in order to achieve certain downhole environment responses. However, typically settings are performed manually based on manually appraised information retrieved from the downhole environment. For example, a technician may review sensor data and, based on experience, adjust various settings such as flow rate, pressure values, chemical compositions, etc., on an electric frac pump. In some cases, a representative system model may be used for determining pump settings based on sensor information; however, the representative system model is typically manually selected by a technician based on observed sensor data. Additionally, the representative system model may be a static construct and may not accurately reflect the well to which it has been deployed. Ex. 1001, 1:9–26 (emphasis added). From the above, it will be understood that much of claim 1 was well-understood, routine, and conventional, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination. The above paragraph makes clear that “controlling an electrical fracturing pump based on the representative system model” was known and conventional. In addition, adjusting settings on an electrical fracturing pump is also how the ’058 patent teaches to generate a sequence of stimuli. Ex. 1001, 2:25–33 (“A given stimulus of the sequence of stimuli can be achieved by adjusting . . . flow rates . . . . In some examples, a sequence can include a various amplitudes (e.g., high, medium, low, etc.).”). Thus, generating a sequence of stimuli is also acknowledged as being known in the Background. See also Dec. 22–23 (preliminarily finding that these limitations were known). Petitioner provides additional argument that other references also show that these limitations were known. See e.g., Pet. 94. However, it is not necessary for us to review these in view of the express acknowledgement of the state of the art in ’058 patent. Based on the record, we determine that claim 1 does not include any specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 11,373,058 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Enfish · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,373,058 - Medit Corporation v. 3shape A/SInstitutedPTAB · Mar 28, 2024 · IPR2023-01315 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12–17 on all asserted grounds because the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For institution, “[t]he ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard is a somewhat flexible standard that allows the Board room to exercise judgment.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 53 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, we interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundInstituted
“We understand Petitioner to rely on an inherent disclosure of the certainty score in contending that Korten anticipates claim 1. See, e.g., ABS Glob., Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLC, 84 F.4th 1034, 1042–43 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“A claim is anticipated if ‘each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.’” (emphasis added). And inherency is a high standard. See, e.g., Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.”). We determine, on the limited record before us, that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing for institution that a certainty score would naturally flow from Korten’s validity and error determinations. Accordingly, upon review of the information in the Petition and corresponding evidence, including Patent Owner’s counter arguments, we determine Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated, at this stage of the proceeding, that Korten discloses the subject matter of limitation 1[c].” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“teachings of Korten with either Lehmann I or Lehmann II. Prelim. Resp. 22–26, 29 (referencing arguments for Ground 2), 35–36 (referencing arguments for Ground 2 directed to motivation to combine references). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the technology of Korten does not overlap with Lehmann II. Id. at 23. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner and Dr. Foroosh fail to address how a person having ordinary skill in the art could have successfully combined the two-dimensional imaging of Lehmann II with the three-dimensional imaging of Korten. See id.; see, e.g., Pet. 31 (“Lehmann II is directed towards the analysis of [two-dimensional] images, whereas Korten is directed towards rendering and displaying [three-dimensional] models.”). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should have been aware of this issue given the Board’s prior decision denying institution in IPR2023-00400. Prelim. Resp. 23. Patent Owner then itemizes a list of technical challenges with respect to combining a two-dimensional system with a three-dimensional system. Id. at 24. These challenges include that Petitioner does not explain “how one might associate a Z-coordinate of Korten with the color data obtained by the Lehmann II camera,” how a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have Korten’s processor align the [two-dimensional] color image areas obtained by the Lehmann II camera with the [three-dimensional] entity previously created by Korten, and then provide color values to the entity at aligned X-Y-Z points,” and “how to implement Lehmann II’s [two-dimensional] image into Korten’s [three-dimensional] model.” Id.; see also id. at 24–26 (discussing difficulties in using spectrophotometers to collect color data and associating two-dimensional color data with three-dimensional representations). Petitioner, concentrating on Lehmann II’s best fit technology, contends that “[a]lthough Lehmann II is directed towards the analysis of [two-dimensional] images, whereas Korten is directed towards rendering and displaying [three-dimensional] models, this difference is immaterial as it relates to determining the certainty score of the selected tooth shade value.” Pet. 31 (referencing Ex. 1015 ¶ 141); cf. Ex. 1015 ¶ 141 (providing the same testimony as is in the Petition). We have reviewed Patent Owner’s argument and determine, on the limited record before us, that Patent Owner identifies a weakness in Petitioner’s position. Petitioner’s contentions concerning motivation to combine Korten and Lehmann II seem to focus on a motivation for using Lehmann’s teachings of the subject matter of limitation 1[c], and does not address Petitioner’s reliance on Lehmann II for the subject matter of limitation 1[b], which recites the step of “determining a tooth shade value for at least one point on the tooth based on the texture data of the corresponding point of the digital 3D representation and on known texture values of one or more reference tooth shade values.” See Pet. 30 (mapping the requirements of limitation 1[b] to disclosures in Lehmann II); Ex. 1001, 21:33–37 (providing limitation 1[b]). Limitation 1[b] seems to require implementing teachings concerning two-dimensional color data from Lehmann II with three-dimensional color data collected at the step of limitation 1[a] by Korten’s system. As such, Petitioner’s reasoning may not be adequately supported by a rational underpinning. Cf. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (stating that, to facilitate the analysis of an obviousness position, the proponent should provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). The parties may develop the record concerning this dispute at trial.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,695,151 - Fanduel, Inc. v. Winview Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01307 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 9, 14–16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 31–33, 40, 41, 43, and 49 are unpatentable as anticipated by Vänskä or obvious over Vänskä, alone or with Barros.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. Based on the fully developed trial record, we are able to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Rubin, FanDuel argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . as of June 20, 2005 [(the filing date of the ’356 application)], would typically have at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in Computer Science and several years of experience in software development.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20, 21). In its Patent Owner Response, WinView does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 9–10. That is, we adopt FanDuel’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because Dr. Rubin’s supporting testimony is consistent with the ’543 patent and the asserted prior art. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our anticipation and obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“particular issue, the evidence demonstrates that it was well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that GPRS provides Internet connectivity. We address each piece of relevant evidence in turn. First, as evidence of the general background knowledge in the art, FanDuel introduced a document with its Reply that explicitly defines GPRS and, in particular, discusses the difference between using GSM and GPRS protocols. Ex. 1011. According to this document, “GPRS revolutionized GSM by providing real data capability and enabling emails and simple web browsing – albeit at speeds much slower than the current standard.” Id. at 1. This document further states that “GPRS provided . . . uninterrupted connectivity to the internet for mobile phones.” Id. FanDuel argues—and we agree—that this document is evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that GPRS provides Internet connectivity to mobile phones. See Pet. Reply 13.” slip op. at 27
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Given that controlling case law mandates that we must consider the explicit and inherent disclosures in Vänskä, “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480), we find that evidence of record supports a finding that Vänskä’s mobile terminal 100 connects to the Internet via a cellular data network when downloading the disposable mini-applications over mobile WAN 130 using GPRS. Stated differently, Vänskä’s mobile terminal 100 connects to the Internet via the mobile WAN 130 using GPRS and, therefore, describes the claimed “mobile web-connected computing device” and “mobile Internet-connected computing device.” We do not agree with WinView’s argument that FanDuel fails to explain how Vänskä discloses an actual or direct connection to the web or Internet purportedly required by the claimed “mobile web-connected computing device” and “mobile Internet-connected computing device.” See PO Resp. 15–19; PO Sur-reply 3–6. Apart from the “mobile . . . computing device” being “web-connected,” the “loading,” “selecting,” and “downloading” steps of independent claim 1 do not require explicitly an actual or direct transmission of data over the web. See Ex. 1001, 12:19–42. Similarly, apart from the “mobile . . . computing device” being “Internet-connected,” the “transmitting” and “receiving” steps of independent claim 49 do not require explicitly an actual or direct transmission of data over the Internet. Id. at 15:3–26. The specification of the ’543 patent supports our view in this regard because it discloses that “the [computing] device connects via the cellular network and/or Internet to the service provider’s server.” Id. at 8:5–9, Fig. 1 (step 106); see also id. at 10:64–65 (stating that, when downloading the “Activity Client,” “the cell phone connects through the cellular network and Internet to a game server”). Therefore, contrary to WinView’s arguments, the specification of the ’543 patent contemplates that the mobile computing device connects to the Internet via a cellular network—it does not require an actual or direct connection to the Internet. The method steps of independent claims 1 and 49 reflect this broad scope because, as we explain above, they do not require an actual or direct transmission of data over the web or Internet. Given the broad scope of the specification and the plain language of independent claims 1 and 49, we agree with FanDuel that Vänskä properly accounts for the claimed “mobile web-connected computing device” and “mobile Internet-connected computing device” because it discloses that mobile terminal 100 connects to the Internet via the mobile WAN 130 using GPRS. We also do not agree with WinView’s argument that, because Vänskä does not disclose any of the browsers, servers, or protocols necessary for web or Internet connectivity, it cannot disclose the claimed “mobile web-connected computing device” and “mobile Internet-connected computing device.” See PO Resp. 20–22, PO Sur-reply 7. WinView fails to recognize that, apart from a single instance in the specification that is labeled as an “example,” the ’543 patent also fails to disclose any browsers, servers, or protocols necessary for web or Internet connectivity. See Ex. 1001, 6:48 (“An example protocol implemented is TCP.”). Put simply, WinView seeks a level of detailed description in Vänskä that is not otherwise provided in the ’543 patent. We decline to impose such a heightened standard on Vänskä, especially when neither the specification nor the claims of the ’543 patent sufficiently describe the purported invention as requiring the use of browsers, servers, or protocols necessary for an actual or direct web or Internet connectivity.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In its Petition, FanDuel contends that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding only, [FanDuel] does not believe any claim construction is necessary to resolve [its unpatentability] analysis.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). In its Patent Owner Response, WinView agrees with FanDuel by stating that “no [claim] terms require construction,” and that each claim term should be giving its ordinary and customary meaning. PO Resp. 11. Based on the fully developed trial record, there is no controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 10,721,543 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,721,543 - Apple Inc. v. Dodots Licensing Solutions LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00939 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–24 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the relied-upon Slivka Appendices qualified as prior art under § 102(e).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“disclosures from the Slivka Appendices, which Petitioner asserts qualify as prior art under § 102(e). Pet. 7. Because Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of showing that the material it relies on was available as prior art at the time of the invention, we determine that the Petitioner has not satisfied its burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent claims it challenges are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–24 of the ’407 patent under the asserted grounds, all of which rely on the Slivka Appendices.” slip op. at 17
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We determine that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Our determination is based on finding that Petitioner’s challenge relies on appendices (Ex. 1005, 69–245) that were not published with the ’695 patent (Ex. 1004). As discussed herein, we conclude, on the record before us, that Petitioner has insufficiently shown that the relied-upon appendices qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 10.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“Appendices (Ex. 1005, 69–245) missing from the ’695 patent (Ex. 1004) as published because the Slivka Appendices were not incorporated by reference into the ’695 patent specification. Thus, there is no sufficient indication on this record to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are available prior art for an inter partes review, as they are not part of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); see Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper No. 29 at 12–13 (December 20, 2019) (precedential) (discussing the standard at institution for a showing regarding the public availability of non-patent art). On this record, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the Slivka Appendices, as separately-filed documents, should be accorded their stamped “DEC 6 1996,” date for prior art purposes. As Patent Owner correctly explains, “the rule requiring publication of applications ‘after the expiration of a period of eighteen months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought’ was not effective until November 29, 2000.” Prelim. Resp. 14–15, 21 (citing 65 Fed. Reg. 57,024). For applications filed before November 29, 2000, as here, “the prosecution history of an application remain[ed] confidential until the application itself issue[d] as a patent.” Hyatt v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 797 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The current record, at most, might support a likelihood that the Slivka Appendices could be accorded the date they were first made publicly available, which is May 9, 2000, the date the ’695 patent issued. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.11 (a) (“After a patent has been issued or a statutory invention registration has been published, the specification, drawings, and all papers relating to the case in the file of the patent or statutory invention registration are open to inspection by the public, and copies may be obtained by paying the fees therefore.”). As Patent Owner points out, however, this is “at least thirteen months after the ’407 patent’s effective filing date,” i.e., April 26, 1999 (based on a claim for priority to, inter alia, U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/131,083). Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 1001, code (60), 1:8–19. In addition, Petitioner only presents a case for availability of the Slivka reference under pre-AIA § 102(e). Pet. 10; Prelim. Reply. On this record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are “(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), . . . or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Accordingly, the relied-upon Slivka Appendices do not qualify as prior art under § 102(e), as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 10.” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,510,407 - Apple Inc. v. Dodots Licensing Solutions LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00938 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–16 because the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices qualified as prior art under § 102(e).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“On this record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are “(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), . . . or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Accordingly, the relied-upon Slivka Appendices do not qualify as prior art under § 102(e), as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 8. III. CONCLUSION Each of Petitioner’s invalidity contentions relies, in part, on disclosures from the Slivka Appendices, which Petitioner asserts qualify as prior art under § 102(e). Pet. 5. Because Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of showing that the material it relies on was available as prior art at the time of the invention, we determine that the Petitioner has not satisfied its burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent claims it challenges are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“Similar to the ʼ257 patent at issue in Southwest Software, the ’695 patent omits the Slivka Appendices. In contrast to the ʼ257 patent, the ’695 patent does not even contain an express statement about the incorporation of appendices. Accordingly, as was the case for the ʼ257 patent with respect to the Program Printout Appendix prior to the filing of the certificate of correction, we find the’695 patent does not include the contents of the Slivka Appendices.” slip op. at 14
- BurdenInstitution denied
“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 does not shift 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 inter partes review).” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,020,083 - Apple Inc. v. Dodots Licensing Solutions LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00937 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–21 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the relied-upon Slivka Appendices qualified as prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“On this record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are “(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), . . . or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent.” 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Accordingly, the relied-upon Slivka Appendices do not qualify as prior art under § 102(e) as Petitioner asserts. Pet. 9. III. CONCLUSION Petitioner’s invalidity contentions rely, in part, on disclosures from the Slivka Appendices, which Petitioner asserts qualify as prior art under § 102(e). Pet. 9. Because Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of showing that the material it relies on was available as prior art at the time of the invention, we determine that the Petitioner has not satisfied its burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).” slip op. at 18
- BurdenDenied
“We determine that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Our determination is based on finding that Petitioner’s challenge relies on appendices (Ex. 1005, 69–245) missing from the ’695 patent (Ex. 1004) and insufficient indication on the record that the appendices have been incorporated into the ’695 patent, and that as a result, the relied-upon appendices do not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as Petitioner asserts. Pet. 9.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“Appendices (Ex. 1005, 69–245) missing from the ’695 patent (Ex. 1004) as published because the Slivka Appendices were not incorporated by reference into the ’695 patent specification. Thus, there is no sufficient indication on this record to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are available prior art for an inter partes review, as they are neither part of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); see Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper No. 29 at 12–13 (December 20, 2019) (precedential) (discussing the standard at institution for a showing regarding the public availability of non-patent art). On this record Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the Slivka Appendices, as separately-filed documents should be accorded their stamped “DEC 6 1996,” date for prior art purposes. As Patent Owner correctly explains, “the rule requiring publication of applications ‘after the expiration of a period of eighteen months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought’ was not effective until November 29, 2000.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing 65 Fed. Reg. 57,024; 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(1)). For applications filed before November 29, 2000, as here, “the prosecution history of an application remain[ed] confidential until the application itself issue[d] as a patent.” Hyatt v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 797 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The current record, at most, might support a likelihood that the Slivka Appendices could be accorded the date they were first made publicly available, which is May 9, 2000, the date the ’695 patent issued. See 37 C.F.R. 1.11 (a) (“After a patent has been issued or a statutory invention registration has been published, the specification, drawings, and all papers relating to the case in the file of the patent or statutory invention registration are open to inspection by the public, and copies may be obtained by paying the fees therefore.”). As Patent Owner points out, however, this is “at least thirteen months after the ’545 patent’s effective filing date,” i.e., April 26, 1999 (based on a claim for priority to, inter alia, U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/131,083). Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 1001, code (60), 1:13–15. In addition, Petitioner only presents a case for availability of the Slivka reference under pre-AIA § 102(e). On this record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are “(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), . . . or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent.” 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Accordingly, the relied-upon Slivka Appendices do not qualify as prior art under § 102(e) as Petitioner asserts. Pet. 9.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,369,545 - Profrac Holding Corporation / U.S. Well Services, LLC v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Nov 1, 2023 · PGR2023-00023 · APJ Brent M Dougal · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR of claims 1–20 because at least one challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable under the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability under the more likely than not standard. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A claim is unpatentable “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). We resolve the question of obviousness based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence,” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA): would have had a B.S. in Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science, or Metallurgical Engineering or an equivalent field and at least two years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including experience with process control systems. Further, a person with additional education but less professional experience, and vice-versa, may qualify. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 4). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 15. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’058 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2022). claim terms. Pet. 25; Prelim. Resp 15–16. We determine that no terms need to be construed at this time. 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 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner also relies on Pankaj Figure 11 to disclose the preamble and the final limitation, with the exception of the fracturing pump/fracturing equipment being electrical. See Pet. 38–40 (discussing e.g., Pankaj’s control method in Figure 11, teachings of computer implementation), 49–51 (discussing e.g., Pankaj’s controlling of production operations, including a fracturing pump). As previously noted, Petitioner relies on Payne for teaching that the fracturing pump can be electrical. Id. at 31, 49–51. Petitioner also provides reasons why one of skill in the art would combine Payne’s electrical fracturing pump with Pankaj’s fracturing system. Id. at 31–38, 51. Patent Owner does not contest that the combination of Pankaj and Payne teaches the above noted limitations. See generally, Prelim. Resp. 50– 57.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,373,058 - Lightspeed Commerce Inc. / Clover Network, LLC v. Cloudofchange, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00997 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Woycik and over Olson in view of Woycik; the Board did not find claims 1–20 unpatentable over Tengler.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajma, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would alter the Petition’s assertion of obviousness. Indeed, as noted by Petitioner, “P[atent ]O[wner]’s expert concedes ‘the difference in levels of ordinary skill proposed by the parties do not change his opinions about the disclosure of the prior art.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1035, 156:25–157:6); see also Ex. 1034, 10–14. Patent Owner provides no rebuttal to this position, other than a single sentence in its Sur-Reply alleging that “[a]lthough experienced in ‘point-of-transaction systems,’ Petitioner’s expert is not a POSITA with respect to the ’012 Patent under either standard.” PO Sur-Reply 23 (citing PO Resp. 8–10). Petitioner’s position has support in the record, not only based on the statements from Patent Owner’s expert noted above, but also with respect to the issues presented in the Patent Owner Response. With respect to the challenges based on Woycik, for example, the disputed issues relate to server considerations. There is no dispute that Woycik teaches POS builder” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A preamble, however, “generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 809. We agree with Petitioner and the Supplemental Claim Construction Order from the District Court in the Lightspeed Litigation that the preamble is unnecessary to understand the claim. Here, the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention. slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“As the Federal Circuit has explained, “a patentee is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of nexus between the asserted evidence of secondary considerations and a patent claim if the patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). A patentee is not entitled to a presumption of nexus if the patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or process. Id. Once “the patentee has presented a prima facie case of nexus, the burden of coming forward with evidence in rebuttal shifts to the challenger . . . to adduce evidence to show that the commercial success was due to extraneous factors other than the patented invention.” Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392–93. Here, we have no presumption of nexus. Nor does Patent Owner” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Even if Patent Owner had established nexus, there is insufficient evidence to show that the NCR Silver product was a commercial success. The jury verdict form simply asks whether “NCR has infringed the . . . claims of the ’012 patent” (Ex. 2008, 3) and asks for “the amount of damages . . . for NCR’s infringement of the ’640 Patent and/or the ’012 Patent” (id. at 7). There is no evidence, such as market share, establishing that the NCR Silver product was a commercial success. See, e.g., In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (discussing the importance of market share compared to sales, alone, to prove commercial success). And, here, we do not even know how the damages relate to the two identified patents individually.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,083,012 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,083,012 - Lightspeed Commerce Inc. / Clover Network, LLC v. Cloudofchange, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00232 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable under § 103 over Woycik, Woycik and Manno, and Olson and Woycik; the Board did not reach the Manno-only ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we discern no reason that Mr. Gray’s qualifications are insufficient to testify on the disputed issues. Nevertheless, we also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not limited to someone experienced in building POS screens. Although, as noted above, the ’640 patent characterizes the novelty as eliminating the need for a specialized programmer to build POS screens, we know that is not novel, as Patent Owner, itself, now acknowledges as explained above. Rather, what is now alleged by Patent Owner to be the novel aspect of the invention relates to the web-based back office system. And even if we accept that experience with POS systems is necessary, as Petitioner notes, and Patent Owner does not dispute, “Mr. Gray explains that his work experience ‘had to do with point of sale and point of transaction.’” See Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 2022, 53:3–54:2). Patent Owner makes much of purported differences between point of sale and point of actual differences are or how they affect Mr. Gray’s qualifications to testify in this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 3; PO Sur-Reply (stating without further discussion: “Although experienced in ‘point-of-transaction systems,’ Petitioner’s expert is not a POSITA with respect to the ’640 Patent under either standard. POR, 9-10.”). For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we discern no reason that Mr. Gray’s qualifications are insufficient to testify on the disputed issues. Nevertheless, we also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not limited to someone experienced in building POS screens. Although, as noted above, the ’640 patent characterizes the novelty as eliminating the need for a specialized programmer to build POS screens, we know that is not novel, as Patent Owner, itself, now acknowledges as explained above. Rather, what is now alleged by Patent Owner to be the novel aspect of the invention relates to the web-based back office system. And even if we accept that experience with POS systems is necessary, as Petitioner notes, and Patent Owner does not dispute, “Mr. Gray explains that his work experience ‘had to do with point of sale and point of transaction.’” See Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 2022, 53:3–54:2). Patent Owner makes much of purported differences between point of sale and point of actual differences are or how they affect Mr. Gray’s qualifications to testify in this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 3; PO Sur-Reply (stating without further discussion: “Although experienced in ‘point-of-transaction systems,’ Petitioner’s expert is not a POSITA with respect to the ’640 Patent under either standard. POR, 9-10.”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“There appears to be an underlying dispute, at least with respect to what is required by POS builder software. PO Resp. 18; Pet. Reply 5–8. But this only appears with respect to the Manno, alone, challenge. We need not expressly construe “POS builder software” because, as explained below, we do not reach the Manno, alone, challenge in this decision. Accordingly, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our 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 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A preamble, however, “generally is not limiting 6 The parties agree that this issue has been fully briefed. See Tr. 21:2–6, 38:25–39:3. deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 809. We agree with Petitioner and the Supplemental Claim Construction Order from the District Court in the Lightspeed Litigation that the preamble is unnecessary to understand the claim. Here, the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention. The body of claim 1 expressly recites “an internet connection from said one or more point of sale terminals to a web server” and “point of sale builder software that runs on said web server,” which we address below. slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,400,640 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,400,640
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.