• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner

    “Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01215 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–15, 17, 18, and 21–24 are unpatentable over Yoshimura-based grounds; claims 6, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner offers an assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of the time the ’655 patent was filed. Pet. 9. For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant “adopt the [following] definition for the person of ordinary skill in the art”: “a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, and has either received academic credits for an ASIC design course or completed at least one year of work experience in the VLSI design, electronic design automation for VLSI, or ASIC design fields.” Id. at 9–10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (Robins Declaration). Patent Owner applies the same definition. Resp. 5. To the extent necessary, we accept this definition because it is supported by the Robins Declaration and consistent with the ’655 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Although the phrase “separate from,” is not found in the claims, we look to the language of the claims, the description in the patent disclosure, and the prosecution history to determine what type of separateness is required by the claims. We start with the relied-upon Figure 4 of the ’655 patent, which illustrates a box labeled “Multi-Scenario ECO Database 426” that is near, but not overlapping with or surrounding, boxes labeled “Image 424” through “Image 422” and “Image 420.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 4. The ’655 patent also describes a storage device 408 as “storing scenario images 420– 424 that correspond to different scenarios,” and “can additionally store multi-scenario ECO database 426,” which “can include circuit information for multiple scenarios that can be used to estimate the impact of ECOs in multiple scenarios.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–11, 5:18–21.” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “determin[e/ing . . . ] an ECO to fix one or more design requirement violations, wherein said determining includes identifying an ECO to fix a design requirement violation in the scenario and checking that ECO against at least some of the multiple scenarios by estimating parameter values based on parameter values stored in the scenario image and the multi-scenario ECO database. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001, 21-24). In reviewing the term, the District Court explained that the multi- scenario ECO database “stores parameters and allows for a quick estimation of an ECO’s impact across multiple scenarios.” Ex. 2001, 19. The District Court further summarized the ’655 patent as describing that a scenario image is “[f]irst” loaded, and if there is a design requirement violation, an ECO is determined for that scenario, and then subsequent scenarios are loaded to check whether the ECO from the first scenario will create new, or exacerbate existing, design violations. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:21–33). However, as recognized by the Court, the process at the cited section is described in the ’655 patent as an “approach [that] may take an impracticably long time to fix design requirement violations in multiple scenarios” due to the long time that is required to load a scenario image. Id. at 24; Ex. 1001, 4:43–47. The Court reasoned that in order to determine an ECO to fix a violation, “determine” must involve “identifying” a possible fix and “checking” whether that fix is suitable. Id. at 23. Thus, the District Court’s construction requires both identifying and checking as part of the claimed determining step. Id. at 23–24. We agree with the District Court’s reasoning, and apply their construction in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Petitioner assertion that Yoshimura’s estimation in step S5 is performed to check an identified ECO is supported by the record. In determining the change to be made (the ECO), Yoshimura uses estimated parameters for the third and fourth corner conditions, calculated in step S5 through the “Hold Margin” equation. Ex. 1007, 6:63–67. Those third and fourth corner conditions are then used to check potential layouts identified in step S6. Id. at 7:18–20 (“In step S6, the automatic EC device 16 searches for a layout that does not cause a timing error under any one of the first to fourth comer conditions from the analysis results of step S4 and step S5.”). In this manner, step S5 sets an initial third corner condition having estimated parameter values that is included, as the initial step, in checking an identified ECO at steps S6–S8. Thus, Yoshimura’s determination of a change to satisfy the corner conditions is, to use Dr. Edward’s phrase, “based on” its third and fourth corner conditions having parameters estimated in step S5. For this reason, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Yoshimura discloses the claimed limitation.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,407,655 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,407,655
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00917 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–9 and 12 are unpatentable as anticipated by Numazaki; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We agree that the preamble of claim 7 is limiting. The last clause of claim 7 refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. The last clause states: “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001, 26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from the “[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. “Said apparatus” does not refer to “apparatus” in the abstract, dissected from the rest of the term. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” can be understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. We disagree with Petitioner that the “handheld computer” portion of the term “[h]andheld computer apparatus” can be ignored. The claim defines the “apparatus” as a “[h]andheld computer apparatus,” and we determine that there is no legal basis for us to dissect this phrase. Petitioner argues that the body of claim 7 only refers to the “apparatus” and not to “handheld computer,” thus “handheld computer” is not essential. But the term is “[h]andheld computer apparatus” not merely “apparatus,” and the body of apparatus.” Thus, we determine that the single term in the preamble, “[h]andheld computer apparatus,” is limiting because it recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claim 7.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesNo construction neededOther

    “Though the parties disagree as to whether the term should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6, both constructions essentially encompass cameras, and therefore it is unnecessary for us to construe as resolution of the dispute does not turn on whichever construction we pick.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “As the Petition does not identify a cell phone in Numazaki as teaching the limitation of claim 11 it cannot show how the Numazaki teaches all of the limitations of the claim. Further, even under Petitioner’s own construction the Petition is deficient. The Petition contains no analysis of how Numazaki’s transmission unit 356 corresponds with the structure of a mobile phone link or equivalents this shortcoming by stating that the “transmission unit” “is part of a ‘TV telephone’ embodiment” in Numazaki; and further arguing that the “transmission unit” is a “functional equivalent for transmitting information.” Reply 22 (emphasis omitted). Notably absent from Petitioner’s argument is an explanation of how the “transmission unit” is a functional equivalent to a mobile phone link. Thus, Petitioner makes no assertion that the transmission unit is the same as or equivalent to the structure Petitioner has identified in the ’431 patent as the relevant structure under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6. For these reasons, Petitioner has not satisfied its burden with respect to its own claim construction. As discussed above, the Petition fails to show how Numazaki teaches the limitation of claim 11 whether under our claim construction or Petitioner’s.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “As noted previously, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, 800 F.3d at 1378. At this stage Petitioner must show that the claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner has not met its burden. For example, Petitioner merely asserts that the word “remote” means “physically separate” without explanation. Petitioner does not address or explain how “remote” is used in the context of Cousins. Petitioner does not address the specific teachings related to an “expert system” in Cousins or how they would be understood in context. Petitioner does not explain why system” (Pet. 20–21) means that the expert system is within the housing of or part of the imaging device.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,933,431
• Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation et al. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2018 · IPR2017-00447 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over SMIL 1.0 and SMIL 1.0 with Hua; claims 12–16 were not shown unpatentable, and anticipation was not established for claims 1–7 and 9–13.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or computer engineering, or the equivalent” and “3-5 years’ experience developing multimedia presentations using a markup language and/or developing software tools to automate the development of multimedia presentations, or equivalent academic experience (e.g., a master’s degree with a similar focus).” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner also does not provide its own definition. See id. Based on the evidence of record, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 15; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1001, 5:54–55, 6:29–30. Petitioner proposes construing the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “part or all of the media presentation.” Pet. 19. Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the claim language and specification of the ’806 patent. Id. at 17–19. Patent Owner proposes construing the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “a media presentation with multiple segments.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the claim language and specification of the ’806 patent. Id. The dispute between the parties focuses on whether a media presentation can consist of only a single file or must have multiple segments. Pet. 17–19; PO Resp. 11. The ’806 patent consistently uses the term “segment” to indicate that a media presentation is divided into multiple segments. Ex. 1001, Abstract (“An electronic file, e.g., an MP3 file, is partitioned into a sequence of segments at the server side.”), 1:65–66 (“To this end the content file is split into multiple parts. Each part or segment requires a relatively short download time.”), 2:60–62, 2:67–3:2, 3:14–16, 3:31–33, 4:15–26 (“The segmentation of the content file into separately downloadable segments . . . .”), 4:35–38, Fig. 1. In contrast, the ’806 patent does not use the term “segment” to refer to a media presentation that consists of only a single file. Id. at 2:7–9. Therefore, because Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification of the ’806 patent, we construe the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “a media presentation with multiple segments.”4” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “constraints.” Ex. 1001, 5:57, 6:33. Petitioner proposes construing the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” to mean “constraints upon a system.” Pet. Reply 9. Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’806 patent. Id. at 9–11. Patent Owner proposes construing the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” to mean “constraints on a system imposed by resources.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’806 patent. Id. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable even if we apply Patent Owner’s narrower proposed construction of the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints.” See infra Sections II.D.2, II.D.10. Therefore, we determine that it is unnecessary to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the meaning of the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” in order to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability in this case. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms 4 Our construction is consistent with the District Court’s determination that the term “media presentation” means “data having multiple segments.” Ex. 1014, 7. need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “3. Means-Plus-Function Limitations Claim 12 recites several limitations that begin with the phrase “means for.” Ex. 1001, 6:41–62. The parties agree that these limitations of claim 12 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 19–20; PO Supp. Resp. 1–2. We address the means-plus-function limitations of claim 12 in detail below. See infra Sections II.C.2, II.D.13.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,806 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,806
• CQG, Inc. / CQG, LLC (F/K/A CQGT, LLC) v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2017 · CBM2016-00048 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of confirming or modifying an order using conventional graphical interface features.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “Claim 1, as a whole, recites a sequence for displaying and submitting electronic versions of what used to be paper forms—i.e., using two interfaces—one displaying price information and the second comprising a detailed order form—to confirm or modify orders. This is essentially a computerized version of the age-old process of displaying prices and providing an order form for placing orders based on that price. Ex. 1026, 297; Ex. 1018, 2. Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that we are improperly distilling the claims, PO Resp. 21, it is only by assessing the claims as a whole that it becomes apparent that claim 1 is directed to placing and modifying an order and not on the scantily described graphical user interface. Merely “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).” slip op. at 14

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “known. Given the above, we determine that the individual elements of the claim do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice. Moreover, considering all of the elements as an ordered combination, we determine that the combined elements also do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Patent Owner contends that these claims are similar to the claims found patent eligible in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), because they are directed to a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of elements. PO Resp. 49. Patent Owner argues that “the claimed solution of the ’435 patent utilizes a specialized graphical trading interface with a particular layout to allow a trader to use a pointing device to execute trades from tabular information.” Id. Patent Owner argues that “the claimed implementation is neither conventional nor generic.” Id. at 50. Patent Owner contends that its claims are unlike Electric Power Group because “the ’435 claims do not recite merely gathering and displaying trading information using conventional computer technology . . . [a]nd they do not purport to monopolize every way of gathering and displaying trading information of every way of gathering and displaying trading information or every way of using user interfaces for placing trading instructions.” Id. at 51–52. Instead, Patent Owner asserts that the challenged claims are “directed to an inventive device or technique for trading with a particular layout of elements and particular techniques, including alterable and selectable features, i.e., a specialized [graphical user interface] tool.” Id. at” slip op. at 28

  • 101 substituteMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “of a limitation for pre-populating the price field, and an explicit limitation requiring that the adjustment of the price field occur using the up and down arrows. As we discussed above, allowing pre-population of data fields and modification of data fields using up and down arrows was known and does not alter the fact that these claims are directed to the pre-electronic analog of a paper order form used as part of the traditional order confirmation and modification process. As we explained above, the original claims already recited the up and down arrows to modify the price and size fields and this limitation only slightly narrows the claim to using those arrows, which were already present in the claim. As we discussed above, those up and down price arrows did not later our conclusion that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “[c]onfirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” Merely, reciting that the already present arrows are used, does not limit the claim in any meaningful way. The explicit use of the arrows and pre-populating a data field are simply specifying how and in what order certain data are to be displayed, which without more, is still collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract). Even considering them together, we agree with Petitioner that they represent merely a computerized version of pre-electronic trading concepts and, much like Ameranth “[t]he patents claim systems including menus with particular features. They do not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have those features, but instead claim the resulting systems.” See Amaranth, 842 F.3d at 1241; see also Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262 (claims abstract where the alleged technological features are merely “tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the amended claims remain directed to the abstract idea of confirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” slip op. at 42

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “paragraphs 59–97 of Mr. Molokhia’s Declaration (Exhibit 2027). Mot. Exclude 1. With respect to Exhibit 2026, Petitioner argues that the exhibit is not relevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, would lead to undue prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and is inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 802. Mot. Exclude 2–3. Patent Owner argues that the testimony is relevant, not prejudicial, and not hearsay. Opp. Exclude 3–8. We did not rely on Exhibit 2026, so we dismiss the motion to exclude as moot insofar as it applies to Exhibit 2026. With respect to paragraphs 59–97 of Exhibit 2027, Petitioner argues that they should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and as “inadmissible conclusions of law.” Mot. Exclude 3. Petitioner argues that Mr. Molokhia fails to provide any underlying facts or data for his conclusions that the amended claims are not obvious. Id. at 5. Petitioner contends that “[w]ithout sufficient facts or data to support Mr. Molokhia’s opinion, such testimony stands as conclusory and unreliable, and thus inadmissible under F.R.E. 702 in view of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Daubert and Kumho.” Id. at 6. We disagree with Petitioner’s argument that Mr. Molokhia’s testimony should be excluded. We have reviewed Mr. Molokhia’s testimony and find that although phrased at times as the ultimate legal issue of obviousness, the bulk of his testimony goes to the underlying factual issues of obviousness. To the extent that the reasoning provided by Mr. Molokhia is insufficient, Petitioner’s arguments go more to the weight that should be given the testimony than its admissibility. See Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int’l, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 81 (1st Cir. matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony—a question to be resolved by the [factfinder].”). Thus, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude paragraphs 59–97 of Exhibit 2027.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,060,435 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 8,060,435
• CQG, Inc. / CQG, LLC et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2017 · CBM2016-00047 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–56 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of confirming or modifying an order using conventional computer components; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “in all of the independent claims, should be construed as “a visual-based environment that enables an exchange of input and output between a user and a computer.” PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner bases its construction on a set of dictionary definitions for the terms “interface,” “graphical user interface,” and “interactive.” See Ex. 2012 (“interface”); Ex. 2013 (“interactive”); Ex. 2014 (“graphical user interface”); Ex. 2021 (“interactive”). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner is improperly importing limitations into this term. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner argues that the term should be construed as a “graphical interface.” Id. at 2. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner seeks to improperly limit the term “second interface.” First, only one of the recited in the claims. The terms “graphical user interface” and “interactive” are absent from the claims. Moreover, the term “graphical user interface” is not used in the specification. Thus, we are reluctant to import the general meaning of these terms into the claims. For example, with respect to “interactive,” there is nothing in the claims that requires the “second interface” be involved in the “exchange of input and output.” Although the claims recite the second interface receiving input from the user, there is no discussion in the independent claims of displaying outputs from the trading system or “exchanging information” from the computer to the user. To the extent other claims explicitly recite exchanging information, we do not believe it is necessary to incorporate that limitation into this term. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”). In addition, from the definition of “graphical user interface,” Patent Owner derives the requirement that the “second interface” be an “environment.” It is unclear what this term adds to construction. The term “environment” is not used in the specification, so we are left to speculate what additional features that term might pull into or exclude from the claim. To the extent that Patent Owner is attempting to use the term “environment” to incorporate additional software components that are not claimed and not described in the specification, we decline to do so. Instead, we rely on the specification’s description of the graphical interface that the parties agree is what is attempted to be claimed as the “second interface.” The specification describes the “second interface” as follows: invention, a trader may enter the command using a command-line interface, click on a component of a bid and offer in a market cell, enter the command using a graphical interface, or may click on a piece of data in a data window. After initiating a command from a command-line interface, a market cell, or a data window, the present invention may verify the entry by presenting a graphical interface. This interface may be the same graphical interface that may be used to enter a trading command. In addition to displaying the graphical interface, a mouse pointer may be redirected to a portion of the graphical interface to speed up entry of the trading command. After initiating the command, but before completing the command, a trader may then alter the parameters of the command either to complete entry of the parameters or to correct one or more incorrect entries. Ex. 1001, 2:8–23. Thus, the specification describes what is attempted to be claimed as the “second interface” simply as a “graphical interface.” We determine that this is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Thus, we construe the term “second interface” as a “graphical interface.”” slip op. at 9

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “Claim 1, as a whole, recites a sequence for displaying and submitting electronic versions of what used to be paper forms—i.e., using two interfaces—one displaying trading commands (and for some claims also price information) and the second comprising a detailed order form—to confirm or modify orders. This is essentially a computerized version of the age-old process of displaying prices and providing an order form for placing orders based on that price. Ex. 1026, 297; Ex. 1018, 2. Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that we are improperly distilling the claims, PO Resp. 25, it is only by assessing the claims as a whole that it becomes apparent that claim 1 is directed to placing and modifying an order and not on the scantily described graphical user interface. Merely “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).” slip op. at 14

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “The use of a graphical user interface, a known way for a user to interact with the computer, does not change the generic nature of the computer. Merely reciting a generic computer and generic computer functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Even limiting the input to using a pointer device, would not add anything to these claims because use of a pointer with a graphical interface was entirely conventional, routine, and known. Given the above, we determine that the individual elements of the claim do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice.” slip op. at 27

  • 101 substituteMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “limitations do not alter the fact that these claims are directed to the pre-electronic analog of a paper order form used as part of the traditional order confirmation and modification process. As we explained above, none of these limitations individually altered our conclusion that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “[c]onfirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” For instance, pre-populating certain fields is simply specifying how and in what order certain data are to be displayed, but without more, that is still abstract. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (explaining that collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract). Even considering them together, we agree with Petitioner that they represent merely a computerized version of pre-electronic trading concepts and, much like Ameranth “[t]he patents claim systems including menus with particular features. They do not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have those features, but instead claim the resulting systems.” See Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241; see also Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262 (claims abstract where the alleged technological features are merely “tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the amended claims remain directed to the abstract idea of confirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,041,626 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 8,041,626
• CQG, Inc. / CQG, LLC (F/K/A CQGT, LLC) et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2017 · CBM2016-00046 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–78 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of confirming or modifying an order using conventional computer interfaces; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “Claim 1, as a whole, recites a sequence for displaying and submitting electronic versions of what used to be paper forms—i.e., using two interfaces—one displaying price information and the second comprising a detailed order form—to confirm or modify orders. This is essentially a computerized version of the age-old process of displaying prices and providing an order form for placing orders based on that price. Ex. 1026, 297; Ex. 1018, 2. Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that we are improperly distilling the claims, PO Resp. 24, it is only by assessing the claims as a whole that it becomes apparent that claim 1 is directed to placing and modifying an order and not on the scantily described graphical user interface. Merely “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).” slip op. at 14

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Even limiting the input to using a pointer device, would not add anything to these claims because use of a pointer with a graphical interface was entirely conventional, routine, and known. Given the above, we determine that the individual elements of the claim do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice. Moreover, considering all of the elements as an ordered combination, we determine that the combined elements also do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Patent Owner contends that these claims are similar to the claims found patent eligible in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), because they are directed to a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of elements. PO Resp. 52. Patent Owner argues that “the claimed solution of the ’416 patent utilizes a specialized graphical trading interface with a particular layout to allow a trader to use a pointing device to execute trades from tabular information.” Id. Patent Owner argues that “the implementation is neither conventional nor generic.” Id. at 53. Patent Owner contends that its claims are unlike Electric Power Group because “the ’416 claims do not recite merely gathering and displaying trading information using conventional computer technology . . . [a]nd they do not purport to monopolize every way of gathering and displaying trading information of every way of gathering and displaying trading information or every way of using user interfaces for placing trading instructions.” Id.” slip op. at 27

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “a “graphical interface.” Id. at 2. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner seeks to improperly limit the term “second interface.” First, only one of the terms Patent Owner relies upon for its dictionary definitions is actually recited in the claims. The terms “graphical user interface” and “interactive” are absent from the claims. Moreover, the term “graphical user interface” is not used in the specification. Thus, we are reluctant to import the general meaning of these terms into the claims. For example, with respect to “interactive,” there is nothing in the claims that requires the “second interface” be involved in the “exchange of input and output.” Although the independent claims recite the “second interface” receiving input from the user, there is no discussion of the second interface displaying outputs from the trading system or “exchanging information” from the computer to the user. To the extent other claims explicitly recite exchanging information, we do not believe it is necessary to incorporate that limitation into this term. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”). In addition, from the definition of “graphical user interface,” Patent Owner derives the requirement that the “second interface” be an “environment.” It is unclear what this term adds to construction. The term “environment” is not used in the specification, so we are left to speculate what additional features that term might pull into or exclude from the claim. To the extent that Patent Owner is attempting to use the term “environment” to incorporate additional software components that are not claimed and not described in the specification, we decline to do so. Instead, we rely on the claimed as the “second interface.” The specification describes a second interface as follows: After initiating a command from a command-line interface, a market cell, or a data window, the present invention may verify the entry by presenting a graphical interface. This interface may be the same graphical interface that may be used to enter a trading command. In addition to displaying the graphical interface, a mouse pointer may be redirected to a portion of the graphical interface to speed up entry of the trading command. After initiating the command, but before completing the command, a trader may then alter the parameters of the command either to complete entry of the parameters or to correct one or more incorrect entries. Ex. 1001, 2:12–24. Thus, the specification describes what is attempted to be claimed as the “second interface” simply as a “graphical interface.” We determine that this is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Thus, we construe the term “second interface” as a “graphical interface.”” slip op. at 10

  • 101 substituteMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “The only substantive amendments made to the claims are the addition of an explicit limitation requiring a “pointer device” as providing the input recited in the claims, an explanation that what is selected is the bid price or the bid price and offer price are pre-populated in the second interface. As we discussed above, these limitations do not alter the fact that these claims are directed to the pre-electronic analog of a paper order form used as part of the traditional order confirmation and modification process. As we explained above, none of these limitations individually altered our conclusion that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “[c]onfirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” For instance, pre-populating certain fields is simply specifying how and in what order certain data are to be displayed, but without more, that is still abstract. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (explaining that collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract). Even considering them together, we agree with Petitioner that they represent merely a computerized version of pre-electronic trading concepts and, much like Ameranth “[t]he patents claim systems including menus with particular features. They do not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have those features, but instead claim the resulting systems.” See Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241; see also Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262 (claims abstract where the alleged technological features are merely “tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the amended claims remain directed to the abstract idea of confirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,890,416 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 7,890,416
• Mako Surgical Corp. v. Blue Belt Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00629 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5–9, 11, 13, 14, and 17 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Claims 1 and 17 lack an indication as to what about the workpiece is being tracked or what constitutes tracking data. In other words, there is nothing in the claims themselves that explicitly indicates that the position of the workpiece is being tracked, as opposed to motion (i.e., tracking if something moved), shape (i.e., tracking the shape of the workpiece after a portion has been cut), or size of the workpiece (i.e., tracking the size of the workpiece after a portion has been cut), or some other parameter associated with the workpiece. The record evidence supports Petitioner’s argument that the ordinary meaning of the word track encompasses monitoring characteristics in general of an object. In other words, “to observe the progress of” or “to follow” something does not necessarily mean that it is the movement or position of something that is being observed or followed (i.e., that an object moved from point A to point B) as Patent Owner’s construction would seem to require. Indeed, the Specification of the ’582 patent itself describes that “in some systems and methods, the cutting tool can include an ultrasonic motor that can transmit an encoder signal to allow the computer to track the motor characteristics (e.g., speed, rotation, etc.).” Ex. 1001, 14:40–43 (emphasis added). Thus, it appears to us that Patent Owner is reading limitations into the claims, because its proposed interpretation for at least to “track the cutting tool and the workpiece” would read out of the claim the embodiment that includes tracking a characteristic of the motor of the cutting tool, such as speed or rotation.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “associated with the workpiece are derived from a first marker associated with the workpiece and that Taylor does not describe “at least one first marker associated with the workpiece.” PO Resp. 15, 16, 20. However, Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite that the tracking data associated with the workpiece are derived from a first marker associated with the workpiece. Moreover, claim 1 recites “where the tracker includes at least one of: at least one first marker associated with the workpiece, and at least one second marker associated with the cutting tool.” Emphasis added. Accordingly, a marker associated with the workpiece is not even required. As long as the prior art describes a marker associated with either the workpiece or the cutting tool, the limitation is satisfied. Taylor describes a marker associated with the cutting tool as described above and Patent Owner does not present arguments that Taylor does not describe a marker associated with the cutting tool. In any event, we agree with Petitioner’s showing (Pet. 22) that Taylor also describes a marker associated with the patient’s femur (workpiece), for example, titanium pins implanted into the patient’s femur. Ex. 1008, 262. While the markers (titanium pins inserted in femur) are for the purpose of imaging the femur (workpiece) pre-operatively, there is nothing in claim 1 that requires that the tracking data be derived from such markers. Claim 1 does not require that the tracking data be derived from markers associated with either of the workpiece or the cutting tool. We also have considered Patent Owner’s argument that Taylor describes bone fixation, which is the exact disadvantageous system described in the Specification of the ’582 patent. PO Resp. 17, 20. However, Patent Owner has not shown this argument to be particularly relevant to the anticipation inquiry. In other words, Patent Owner does not contend that claim 1 forecloses bone fixation, and we conclude that it does not. Patent Owner argues that Taylor does not describe tracking data associated with a workpiece because Taylor’s system does not provide tracking data that identify the location and position of the workpiece over time within a coordinate system. PO Resp. 15–21. As explained above in the claim interpretation section, Patent Owner has not shown that the term “tracking data” necessarily includes data that identify a position (location) of the workpiece over time within a coordinate system. Rather, as explained above, “tracking data” include data associated with monitoring a characteristic of the workpiece. Taylor describes a redundant motion monitoring subsystem that, among other things, monitors strain gauges that can detect possible shifts of bone relative to a fixation device. Taylor further describes that in using the strain gauge system for detecting shifts or motions of the bone relative to the fixator, motions on the order of 0.1 mm could be detected. Id. at 270.6 Taylor further describes that if such a shift is detected 6 This description in Taylor contradicts Dr. Cleary’s testimony that the “strain gauge described in Taylor, however, only signals whether the workpiece has moved.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 44. By detecting that the bone has moved by a certain amount, (e.g., described in Taylor as being on the order of 0.1 mm), we find that Taylor describes doing more than signaling whether a workpiece has moved, and, thus, would appear to meet even Patent a “freeze motion” signal is sent to the robot controller. Ex. 1008, 265. Under the correct interpretation, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence that Taylor meets the claim 1 “tracking data associated with the workpiece” limitation.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “speed (65,000 rpm) pneumatic surgical cutting tool, which Petitioner characterizes as a drill or rotatable blade. Pet. 18–19, 23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 37, 46. Petitioner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the ball cutter in Taylor with other known cutting elements, such as the one described in Glassman. Id. Patent Owner does not contend that Glassman does not meet the additional limitations of claim 3, or that it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Glassman and Taylor. PO Resp. 52–54. Rather, Patent Owner argues that Glassman does describe the claim 1 elements. Id. The argument is misplaced as the Petition does not rely on Glassman to meet any of the claim 1 elements. For all of these reasons, we agree with Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own, that Taylor in combination with Glassman disclose a rotatable blade and that modifying Taylor’s ball cutter with Glassman’s rotatable blade would have been obvious for the reasons provided by Petitioner.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that Taylor would have discouraged a person of ordinary skill in the art from replacing Taylor’s titanium pin markers with infrared markers. As explained already, the claims do not preclude bone fixation, and, therefore, whether Taylor fixes the bone during operation has not been shown to be particularly relevant in determining whether claim 7 would have been obvious based on Taylor and DiGioia. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding items 2 and 3 above also are not persuasive, because such arguments are narrowly based on incorporating physically all technicalities of DiGioia into Taylor. See, e.g., PO Resp. 55– 56. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not whether one reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In particular, and in support of Patent Owner’s arguments, Dr. Cleary opines that Taylor discourages using an image-based tracking system, such as DiGioia’s, in the operating room. Ex. 2004 ¶ 112. But Petitioner does not propose using DiGioia’s whole system with Taylor’s system. Rather, DiGioia is relied on for its teaching of infrared markers. Patent Owner’s arguments, and the supporting testimony of Dr. Cleary, are premised on the assumption of incorporating all features of DiGioia into Taylor, which is not what Petitioner proposes.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 6,757,582 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,582
• Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00345 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–16, 23, and 24 were held unpatentable as anticipated by Iwamura; the Board did not find claims 1–8, 21, 22, 25–27, 29, 30, 33–35, 37, and 38 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Although the sections of the Specification of the ’237 Patent cited by Petitioner relate to disk size, that size is a direct result of the number of records in the data set. Claim 1, for example, recites “using the received features extracted from the media work to perform a sub-linear time search of extracted features of identified media works.” For that claim, under our adopted claim construction, the size of the data set would be the number of extracted features of the identified media works. It would not be logical to assume that the size of the data set would be the length of an individual record or the amount of disk space the data set occupies when the number of extracted features would be readily available. Although disk space could be used as a measure, it would be variable with respect to the format of the disk space, for example. Therefore, we are not persuaded that disk space should be used as a determinant of data set size in the construction of “sub-linear search.” As such, the data set would be the number of extracted features, in claim 1, irrespective of the exact number of commercials or frames.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “ii) “non-exhaustive search” With respect to the claim term “non-exhaustive search,” Patent Owner emphasizes that a non-exhaustive search makes a comparison without all possible matches but does not concern itself with whether all data within all possible matches have been compared. PO Resp. 6–7. Petitioner does not dispute the construction, and we remain persuaded that a “non-exhaustive” search need not consider all data within all possible matches, but rather should be exhaustive or non-exhaustive with respect to the number of records in a database. See Dec. 5–7.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner responds that the statements in the Specification do not rise to the level of lexicography or disavowal. Reply 4–5 (citing Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 F. App'x 864, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). We agree, given that the cited portion provides that an approximate nearest neighbor search may be an example of a sublinear search, but not that all approximate nearest neighbor searches must be sub-linear. Additionally, Patent Owner has not provided persuasive evidence that all approximate nearest neighbor searches must be sub-linear, other than the citation to the Specification. As well, similar to our discussion of neighbor searches above, we are not persuaded that if an approximate nearest neighbor search happens to arrive at an exact match, that would negate the nature of the search. We are persuaded that an approximate nearest neighbor search would depend on the search methodology and not on the specific results obtained. Additionally, as Petitioner points out, the instant claims confirm that sublinearity is not necessarily required for an approximate nearest neighbor search. Reply 5–6. Claim 33 recites, in part, a “sublinear approximate nearest neighbor search,” whereas claims 9 and 12 simply recite an “approximate nearest neighbor search,” without the sublinear modifier. Interpreting all recitations of approximate nearest neighbor searches as intrinsically sublinear would render the limitation in claim 33 superfluous. Id. (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). For this additional reason, we remain persuaded that an approximate nearest neighbor search corresponds to “identifying a close match that is not necessarily the closest match,” without a requirement of being sublinear.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “in which he agrees that Iwamura’s system compares a work to be identified with each reference work in the database. PO Resp. 26–28 (citing Ex. 2006, 207:18–23, 223:2–8, 247:18–20, 269:19–270:2, 271:19–21); see also Tr. 17:17 (Petitioner conceding at oral hearing that “every song is looked at”). Dr. Moulin also acknowledges that if a non-exhaustive search is one that does not look at each of the melodies in the database, Iwamura discloses an exhaustive search rather than a non-exhaustive search. Ex. 2006, 233:24– 234:14; see PO Resp. 27. Despite Dr. Moulin’s testimony and Iwamura’s description of a search that compares an input melody to each melody in the database, Petitioner contends that Iwamura discloses a non-exhaustive search. First, Petitioner submits that Iwamura specifically identifies its peak note search as a non-exhaustive search because the “search speed using peak notes is 20% of a brute force search.” Pet. 9–10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 9:8–11); Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1012, 9:7–11; Ex. 2005 ¶ 82; Ex. 2001). We agree with Patent Owner, however, that Iwamura’s peak note search accelerates a search within a single comparison between a work to be identified and an individual record in the database, while still comparing the work to each record in the database. See PO Resp. 29–30. In other words, the peak search technique may improve the efficiency of an individual comparison between an entered melody and a reference melody in the database, but it is still an exhaustive search because it compares the entered melody with each musical work in the database, as confirmed by Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Moulin. Id. (citing Ex. 2006, 269:19–270:2). Petitioner further argues that Iwamura discloses a non-exhaustive search because the search can be accelerated by stopping the search when computations “exceed[] a certain limit.” Pet. 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 7:56– 57). We agree with Patent Owner that this disclosure also refers to improving the speed of a comparison between the work to be identified and a single record in the reference database. See PO Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 179). As Dr. Karypis explains and Dr. Moulin confirms, when the total absolute difference computed between the entered melody and a particular reference melody exceeds a certain limit, the computation stops, and the search shifts to the next peak range comparison within the same record. Id. at 32–35 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 180–81; Ex. 2006, 241:24–242:2). Thus, Iwamura’s computation “limit” does not describe a non-exhaustive search because Iwamura still compares a work to be identified with each reference melody in the database.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,205,237 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,205,237
• Informatica Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2016 · CBM2015-00010 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 33–60 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is denied as to substitute claims 61–68 and granted as to cancellation of claims 1–32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “B. Patent Owner’s Request to Cancel Claims 1–32 In the Patent Owner’s Response and the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner requests cancellation of claims 1–32 of the ’281 patent. PO Resp. 2– 3; Mot. Amend 1. Patent Owner’s request to cancel these claims is not contingent on the claims being determined to be unpatentable or on the entry of the proposed substitute claims. Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 1–32 is granted and we need not address these claims further. Paper 23. Patent Owner, subsequently, filed the Motion to Amend as Exhibit 2098. See Paper 43.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int'l, 141 F.3d 1084, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 619–20 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Independent claim 33 recites “[a] computer-implemented data processing method” that includes, among other steps, a step of “maintaining a database comprising a plurality of data portions.” Ex. 1001, 13:38–41. Similarly, independent claim 47 recites “[a] computer system” that includes, among other elements, “a database storing a plurality of data portions.” Id. at 14:47–48. As can be seen from the above, claims 33 and 47 recite that the database comprises or stores data portions. Neither of claims 33 and 47, nor any claims dependent, therefrom, recite that the database performs any other function, such as producing a compelling calling to the data protection catalogue to retrieve the data processing rules. See id. at 13:38–16:29. Indeed, unlike the parent ’201 patent, none of the claims of the ’281 patent recite a compelling calling at all. See id.; Ex. 1004, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:24–51 (amended claim 8). Notably, independent claim 8 of the parent ’201 patent recite an apparatus having a database that stores data to be protected. Ex. 1004, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:24–51 (amended claim 8). Claim 8 of the parent ’201 patent was amended during reexamination to recite that the apparatus, not the database, controls the user’s processing of the data according to the data processing rules, and the apparatus, not the database, also produces the compelling calling to the data element protection catalogue. Id. at Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:41–51. The words of the claims of the ’281 patent, thus, are consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest reasonable construction.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “v. Other Proposed Constructions Petitioner also proposed a construction of “encryption/encrypted” and “separate data protection table.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner also proposed a construction of “data element type.” PO Resp. 27–28. For the purposes of our review of the claims of the ’281 patent, however, no explicit construction of any other claim term is needed.” slip op. at 18

  • BurdenInstitution denied meritsDecided for petitioner

    “A party may not petition for post-grant review if it has filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the petition is filed. 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.201(a). In SecureBuy, LLC, the Board determined the 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) applied to covered business method review proceedings, but made no determination as to whether or not a dismissal without prejudice triggered the statutory bar. See SecureBuy, LLC, CBM2014-00035 (PTAB April 25, 2014) (Paper 12). Here, Petitioner’s filing of a civil action before filing the Petition did not trigger the statutory bar because the civil action was dismissed without prejudice. See id. Dismissal without prejudice does not trigger the statutory bar. See Decision 9 (citing Cyanotech Corp. v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill., IPR2013-00401, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2013) (Paper 17) (“Excluding an action that de jure never existed from the scope of § 315(a)(1) is consistent with both relevant case law and 7 On May 4, 2015, Petitioner, via email, informed the Board of a clerical typographical error on page 11 of the Petition. The sentence starting with “[i]n the prior cases, petitioner was sued . . .” should be read as “[i]n the prior cases, petitioner was not sued . . . .” legislative history.”); Callidus Software, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00052, slip op. at 5–7 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2014) (Paper 21). “The dismissal of an action without prejudice leaves the parties as though the action had never been brought.” Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, slip op. at 16–18 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014)(Paper 166) (citing Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,402,281 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 8,402,281

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.