• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01563 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–14 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 would have been obvious over Yong and Xavier.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1‒14 based on the ground set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Weighing the arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314 of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that Yong qualifies as prior art. Hulu at 13. As Petitioner asserts, the KIPO logo and the multiple instances of publication number 10-2007-0087811 on Yong’s first page provide some evidence of authenticity. Ex. 1009, 1; Reply to Prelim. Resp. 3. Additionally, KIPO Yong tends to show that Yong constitutes an authentic version of Korean Publication No. 10-2007-0087811. Yong’s and KIPO Yong’s Figures appear substantially the same. Compare Ex. 1009, 42–48, with Ex. 2001, 28–33. Additionally, the content starting on page 2 of Yong, where Patent Owner contends “claims appear to be present,” closely resembles the content starting on page 11 of KIPO Yong, which Patent Owner posits “may be claims.” Prelim. Resp. 22, 29; Ex. 1009, 2–30; Ex. 2001, 11–27. Consistent with Patent Owner’s observations, these portions of Yong and KIPO Yong appear to present claims. Specifically, these sections of Yong and KIPO Yong each appear to present exactly 140 claims. Ex. 1009, 2–30; Ex. 2001, 11–27. These sections share a number of other similarities, also. For example, in both Yong and KIPO Yong, in the midst of Korean characters, what appears to be claim 69 recites “POS.” Ex. 1009, 16; Ex. 2001, 19. Similar commonalities appear numerous places within these portions of Yong and KIPO Yong. Ex. 1009, 2–30; Ex. 2001, 11–27. The similarities between Yong and KIPO Yong tend to show that Yong is an authentic version of Korean Publication No. 10-2007-0087811 and has the same substantive content as KIPO Yong, just formatted and arranged differently. This is not significantly undermined by Patent Owner’s observations about certain differences between the documents, especially in the absence of a translation of KIPO Yong, which would have facilitated comparing the documents’ content. Indeed, considering Patent Owner’s omission of a translation of KIPO Yong, Patent Owner’s complaints of prejudice and “Petitioner’s hide-the-ball tactics” ring hollow. Prelim. Sur-reply 2, 5. Although we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not yet met the requirements of Rule 42.63(b) for the translation of Yong, we do not find it warranted to deny institution on this basis. Instead, we treat Patent’s Owner’s pre-institution arguments that Petitioner fails to comply with Rule 42.63(b) as evidentiary objections. If Patent Owner wishes to preserve its objections, Patent Owner must formally object to Petitioner’s evidence after institution of inter partes review by this Decision.” slip op. at 16

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “As discussed above, Petitioner filed four petitions challenging the ’435 patent on the same day, including this proceeding, IPR2022-01563, as well as IPR2022-01528, IPR2022-01561, and IPR2022-01564. In this proceeding, IPR2022-01563, and in IPR2022-01561 and IPR2022-01564, Petitioner challenges claims 1–14 of the ’435 patent over various prior art grounds. Pet. 11; Not. 2. In IPR2022-01528, Petitioner challenges claims 15–19 of the ’435 patent over various prior art grounds. Not. 2. Pursuant to the Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“TPG”),3 Petitioner’s Notice provides a ranking of the four petitions in the order in which Petitioner wishes the Board to consider them on the merits and a succinct explanation of the differences between the Petitions. See TPG 59–60; Not. 1–5. Petitioner ranks the instant Petition as “3,” the petition in IPR2022-01528 as “1,” the petition in IPR2022-01561 as “2,” and the petition in IPR2022-01564 as “4.” Not. 2–5. Petitioner, however, contends that “all four Petitions merit institution” because “[a]ll four Petitions present significant material differences which are not redundant and which demonstrate different substantive bases for rendering obvious or for showing anticipation of each of the challenged claims of the ’435 Patent,” and “[d]ue to word count limitations, Petitioner 3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. was not able to present all these grounds in a single petition.” Id. at 1, 3. Petitioner elaborates that 1) the claims of the ’435 Patent comprise over 1,500 words, such that to cover a plurality of grounds in one petition covering all the claims would use at least twenty percent of the 14,000-word petition limit; and 2) Patent Owner has asserted 15 of the 19 claims of the patent in the pending district court litigation (see Ex. 1026). Id. at 2. Patent Owner argues that “the panel should, at most, address the -01528 petition on the merits, as petitioner requested, and discretionarily deny the other three petitions under § 314(a).” Prelim. Resp. 3–4. Regarding the ’435 patent’s claims’ length, Patent Owner argues that “the ’435 Patent claims is indicative of the quality of examination, rather than an excuse for the piling on that Petitioner exhibits in these challenges.” Id. at 6. Under the circumstances presented, where Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s observation that the ’435 patent has very long claims, we conclude it is not unreasonable for Petitioner to file multiple petitions. In our view, even if it were accurate, Patent Owner’s argument that the claims’ “narrowness” reflects quality examination does not detract from Petitioner’s argument that the length of the claims warrants more than one petition. Prelim. Resp. 6.” slip op. at 25

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

    “3. Discussion In asserting obviousness of claims 1–14 over Yong and Xavier, Petitioner argues that Yong discloses many of the challenged claims’ limitations. Pet. 13–43. For example, Petitioner relies primarily on Yong as allegedly disclosing claim 1’s limitations. Id. at 13–26. Petitioner relies on Xavier as “teach[ing] the use of a session between a mobile phone and se[r]ver in a self-checkout system.” Id. at 15. Petitioner argues that “[h]aving reviewed Xavier, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to add the session handling of Xavier to Yong.” Id. According to Petitioner, “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that a session manager would have been necessary to manage the communications between the mobile communication terminal 100 and the store POS server 200, the commercial transaction server 400 and the payment server 500.” Id. At this stage, aside from the arguments discussed above in Section II.C.1 that we should not consider Yong as prior art, Patent Owner does not dispute the merits of Petitioner’s challenge to claims 1–14. Having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing that claims 1–14 would have been obvious over Yong and Xavier. Pet. 1–43.” slip op. at 24

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01528 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 15–19 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Yong anticipates claim 15.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 15‒19 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDenied

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s parallel filing of four petitions warrants denying all four petitions. Prelim. Resp. 7 (“Petitioner’s abuse of process in filing four petitions justifies discretionary denial of all of the petitions.”). Accordingly, given that Petitioner ranks the instant Petition “1,” we decline to deny institution in this proceeding. Additionally, under the circumstances presented, where Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s observation that the ’435 patent has very long claims, we conclude it is not unreasonable for Petitioner to file multiple petitions. In our view, even if it were accurate, Patent Owner’s argument that the claims’ “narrowness” reflects quality examination does not detract from Petitioner’s argument that the length of the claims warrants more than one petition. Prelim. Resp. 6.” slip op. at 33

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

    “Weighing the arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314 of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that Yong qualifies as prior art. Hulu at 13. As Petitioner asserts, the KIPO logo and the multiple instances of publication number 10-2007-0087811 on Yong’s first page provide some evidence of authenticity. Ex. 1009, 1; Reply to Prelim. Resp. 3.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner contends that [a] person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the claimed priority date would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field or equivalent coursework or experience, and one to two years of experience with mobile device applications and retail POS systems. (Shamos ¶ 34.) More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. (Id.) Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 18. For purposes of deciding whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the ’435 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Keith anticipates at least claims 1 and 10.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1‒14 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “Under the circumstances presented, where the priority date of the challenged claims is disputed, we conclude it is not unreasonable for Petitioner to present separate challenges, one of which relies on references that are prior art only if the challenged claims are not entitled to Patent Owner’s claimed priority date, which has yet to be finally determined. See TPG 59 (stating that “a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references” can be a potential reason for the Board to institute trial on multiple petitions challenging the same patent). Thus, on the present record, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this Petition on the basis of Petitioner filing multiple petitions.” slip op. at 46

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field or equivalent coursework or experience, and one to two years of experience with mobile device applications and retail POS systems,” also noting that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 18. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proffered level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’435 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that an express construction of this or any other claim term is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00102 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 9 are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b); the Board did not find claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–28 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’459 patent’s description and Dr. Adnan’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary level of skill in the art does not require the high level of specialized knowledge of control systems suggested by Patent Owner. Moreover, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the full record, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher is unqualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to have been a fracturing operator. Patent Owner’s proposed definition does not even require experience as a fracturing operator. See PO Resp. 22. Furthermore, Mr. Marscher testifies that he has extensive experience developing pumps for fracturing applications. Ex. 2027, 6:24–8:7. Mr. Marscher also testifies that he has experience with control systems relating to pumps and pumps units. Id. at 212:19–23. This testimony, as well as his declaration and curriculum vitae, show that Mr. Marscher has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher’s qualifications or experience provide reason to discount the weight associated with Mr. Marscher’s testimony.” slip op. at 10

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

    “is the pump unit’s highest HHP output and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this value is the pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty. Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72, 123–124; Pet. 9– 10; Ex. 1036, 64:17–67:13, 119:17–120:11, 124:7–24, 198:9–200:9, 221:8– 222:15). However, even if Petitioner is correct that the “maximum power output value” is near or equivalent to a pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty, we are still not persuaded that the term “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value,” in conflict with the definition provided in the Specification. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is indefinite. Pet. Reply 3. For the reasons discussed below (see supra § II.I.1), we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the term “maximum intermittent power,” as defined in the Specification, is indefinite. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we maintain our prior construction of “maximum intermittent power” for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

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

    “5. Additional Terms We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; see also Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,907,459 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,907,459
• Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground; the Board found the prior art failed to establish key limitations and rejected the enablement and indefiniteness challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In reply, Petitioner argues that the ’764 patent’s control system is not complex as there are no detailed algorithms, logic, or software. Pet. Reply 4. Instead, the control system merely raises or lowers power of the pumps in accordance with the demand HHP of the job design. Id. (citing Ex. 1036, 97:15–98:18, 98:21–99:25, 100:1–101:25, 102:2–7, 115:4–9, 115:24–116:4, 116:17–22; Ex. 1001, 5:2–6, 6:36–7:7, 10:4–64). According to Petitioner, this “rudimentary control concept” does not necessitate the higher skill level proposed by Patent Owner. Id. Petitioner further notes that Dr. Adnan testifies that “a mechanical engineer who has worked in the industry developing programming and control systems could fall within this definition,” and the person of ordinary skill in the art “is ‘just a specifier.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 2003 ¶ 22; Ex. 1036, 161:21–164:18). Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’764 patent’s description and Dr. Adnan’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary level of skill in the art does not require the high level of specialized knowledge of control systems suggested by Patent Owner. Moreover, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the full record, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher is unqualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to have been a fracturing operator. Patent Owner’s proposed definition does not even require experience as a fracturing operator. See PO Resp. 20–21. Furthermore, Mr. Marscher testifies that he has extensive experience developing pumps for fracturing applications. Ex. 2027, 6:24–8:7. Mr. Marscher also testifies that he has experience with control systems relating to pumps and pumps units. Id. at 212:19–23. This testimony, as well as his declaration and curriculum vitae, show that Mr. Marscher has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher’s qualifications or experience provide reason to discount the weight associated with Mr. Marscher’s testimony.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In its Reply, Petitioner argues that the maximum power output value is the pump unit’s highest HHP output and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this value is the pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72, 123–124; Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1036, 64:17–67:13, 119:17–120:11, 124:7–24, 198:9–200:9, 221:8–222:15). However, even if Petitioner is correct that the “maximum power output value” is near or equivalent to a pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty, we are still not persuaded that the term “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value,” in conflict with the definition provided in the Specification. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is indefinite. Pet. Reply 3. For the reasons discussed below (see supra § II.I.1), we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the term “maximum intermittent power,” as defined in the Specification, is indefinite. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we maintain our prior construction of “maximum intermittent power” for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “3. Additional Terms We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. 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 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,815,764 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,815,764
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01239 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 12–14, 17, and 18 on all asserted grounds after finding 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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1‒5, 12– 14, 17, and 18 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payments,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–35).” slip op. at 9

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

    “agreed to construe the claim term “payment gateway” as a “server or collection of servers for settling a payment.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1016, 2). Petitioner further contends that the parties are disputing the constructions of the claim terms “e-purse,” e-purse applet,” and “application” in the District Court Case, but the differences between the proposed construction need not be resolved for this proceeding because its asserted grounds of unpatentability satisfy both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Id. at 9–10. Patent Owner argues that, for the purposes of its Preliminary Response only, claim construction is not required to resolve any issues. Prelim, Resp. 4. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “In view of these teachings, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Jogu’s balance check in Laracey’s mobile device because this modification would have achieved the same benefits in Laracey that the balance check provides in Jogu. Id. at 40– 41 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Jogu’s balance check ensures that a user is informed of insufficient funds before proceeding with a transaction that will ultimately fail, which provides the benefit producing successful transactions and avoids the need to resolve an insufficient funds issue. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–121). In addition, Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that Jogu’s balance check process is particularly well-suited to Laracey’s system because Laracey expressly provides alternative account options for the user to select in the event an e-purse has insufficient funds.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–121). Petitioner asserts that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination because it would have required only minor programming that was well within the ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,600,046
• Apple Inc. v. Shenzhen Rfcyber Asset Management, LLPInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01240 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that Hayaashi and Prisma rendered the claims obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “sufficiently that the proposed combination of Hayaashi and Prisma would incorporate Prisma’s JCVM. See id. at 15–19. Instead, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have simply needed to modify Hayaashi’s smart IC card chip 171 to incorporate Prisma’s core smart card elements, including CALC/OS and support for third-party e-purse applets.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–167). More specifically, Petitioner provides an annotated diagram, reproduced below, to identify the smart card components from Prisma to be incorporated into Hayaashi’s smart IC card chip 171. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1005, 9). In this annotated diagram, Petitioner adds red borders to the three boxes labeled “e-purse,” “CALC,” and “OS,”5 thereby 5 “CALC” is Prisma’s Card and Application LifeCycle manager, and “OS” is the card’s operating system. Ex. 1005, 6, 9. Hayaashi. As such, Petitioner does not specify Prisma’s JCVM as component that is incorporated into Hayaashi. To the extent Petitioner’s reference to “support for third-party e-purse applets” is meant to include Prisma’s JCVM, such a broad statement that fails to specifically mention Prisma’s JCVM lacks sufficient specificity to suggest that it would have been obvious to modify Hayaashi to include Prisma’s JCVM. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). For these reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to incorporate Prisma’s JCVM into Hayaashi.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “purse applet and provides a response the e-purse applet is configured to expect” as claimed because the JCVM ensures that an applet operates as expected and that the applet’s requests are handled as the applet expects regardless of the underlying hardware platform. Ex. 1003 ¶ 178. This testimony, however, is entitled to little weight because Mr. Smith fails to provide the underlying basis for his opinion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail). The assertion that “the JCVM ensures that an applet operates as expected” is a conclusory statement not supported sufficiently by any objective evidence or analysis. Accordingly, we do not find Mr. Smith’s testimony of this point persuasive. Moreover, neither the Petition nor Mr. Smith explains sufficiently how Hayaashi or Prisma disclose providing an e-purse applet that the JCVM would interact with in the manner claimed. For the above reasons, we determine Petitioner has not met its burden” slip op. at 15

  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,118,218
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–11 based on the § 103 ground over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’724 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–11) of the ’724 patent, based on the ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that it “utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art,” but only for its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 9. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306; New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 543 F.3d 710, 718 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Patent claims are awarded priority on a claim-by-claim basis based on the disclosure in the priority applications.”). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlierfiled application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. Nor could the claimed subject matter have been “envisioned” from the earlier disclosure to establish written description support. Goeddel v. Sugano, 617 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We agree with Petitioner that, on this record, there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. Patent Owner identifies the following disclosure from the ’218 patent (the patent that issued from the ’653 application) as supporting limitation [1(j)]: According to one embodiment, a smart card has a preloaded smart card operation system that provides security framework to control the access to the Smart card (e.g., an installation of external applications into the smart card). In order to manage the life cycle of an external application, a card manager module is configured by using the smart card security framework. For instance, a Java based smart card, SmartMX, is preloaded with an operating system JCOP 4.1. The Global Platform 2.1 installed on the SmartMX performs the card manager functionality. Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. Patent Owner argues that “this description is substantively identical to that on which Apple relies for disclosure of the “emulator device” and “replace out of the emulator device . . . replacing out of the emulator device . . .” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26. Patent Owner contends that “Apple relies on Buhot’s discussion of an ‘operating system 314 (running on processor 400) for the ‘emulator device’ limitation (Pet. at 31), and relies on Zhu’s alleged teachings regarding a ‘smart card manager . . . which governs the process of loading and unloading applications out of an emulator’ for the ‘replace out of the emulator device . . . replacing out of the emulator device’ limitations.” Id. (citing Pet. 43). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “cannot argue with a straight face that its proposed combination discloses” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,018,724
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01241 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the combination accounts for limitation 1(f). As Patent Owner states, neither Prisma nor Hayaashi contain any express discussion of transaction logs, let alone “causing an emulator” to do so “after an authenticity of the commands is verified by the e-purse applet.” To fill this hole in the combination, Petitioner leans heavily on what it contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood” about the modified system. See, e.g., Pet. 38. It is unclear whether Petitioner relying on inherency, some modification to the combination, or some combination with other knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to arrive at this limitation. But setting aside this problem for a moment, we find that Petitioner has failed to show sufficiently that what it contends is the emulator, the Java Card Virtual Machine, updates the logs, and more importantly, whether the logs are updated after the e-purse applet verifies the commands. Again, there is no express disclosure in Prisma of these components performing these actions. Instead, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Mr. Smith to show that the combination accounts for this limitation. See Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 208–215). But we find Mr. Smith’s testimony to be insufficient because it relies lacks adequate support for his assertions about what he contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood” about how the hypothetical third-party e-purse application would have operated. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213–214. Mr. Smith’s contentions about what a person of ordinary skill are supported only with citations to vague passages in the Prisma reference that merely mention the use of Application for Secure Personal Identification and Communication (ASPIC) and public key infrastructure (PKI). See id. ¶ 213 (citing Ex. 1005, 21–22). Mr. Smith gestures to these passages, but then goes far beyond what those passages disclose without adequately tying his contentions to the actual disclosures and additional supporting evidence. See id. ¶¶ 213–214. Without more explanation and support, we find this evidence inadequate to show that the combination would actually suggest this limitation.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the Declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’855 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner states that it “utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art,” but only for its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’855 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “reasonable likelihood that the combination accounts for limitation 1(f). As Patent Owner states, neither Prisma nor Hayaashi contain any express discussion of transaction logs, let alone “causing an emulator” to do so “after an authenticity of the commands is verified by the e-purse applet.” To fill this hole in the combination, Petitioner leans heavily on what it contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood” about the modified system. See, e.g., Pet. 38. It is unclear whether Petitioner relying on inherency, some modification to the combination, or some combination with other knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to arrive at this limitation. But setting aside this problem for a moment, we find that Petitioner has failed to show sufficiently that what it contends is the emulator, the Java Card Virtual Machine, updates the logs, and more importantly, whether the logs are updated after the e-purse applet verifies the commands. Again, there is no express disclosure in Prisma of these components performing these actions. Instead, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Mr. Smith to show that the combination accounts for this limitation. See Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 208–215). But we find Mr. Smith’s testimony to be insufficient because it relies lacks adequate support for his assertions about what he contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood” about how the hypothetical third-party e-purse application would have operated. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213–214. Mr. Smith’s contentions about what a person of ordinary skill are supported only with citations to vague passages in the Prisma reference that merely mention the use of Application for Secure Personal Identification and Communication (ASPIC) and public key infrastructure (PKI). See id. ¶ 213 (citing Ex. 1005, 21–22). Mr. Smith gestures to these passages, but then goes far beyond what those passages disclose without adequately tying his contentions to the actual disclosures and additional supporting evidence. See id. ¶¶ 213–214. Without more explanation and support, we find this evidence inadequate to show that the combination would actually suggest this limitation. The lack of clarity of what theory the Petition is relying for this limitation exacerbates this problem. Because the references are completely silent as to “transaction logs,” let alone when, how, or by what they are updated, it is important for Petitioner to explain how it is filling that gap. Instead, Petitioner and Mr. Smith venture far beyond the disclosure of the actual references to what they contend a person of ordinary skill “would have known.” See Pet. 36–38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 208–215. At some points, Petitioner appears to attempt to rely on the underlying Prisma Proton system, not just the Prisma reference relied on in this ground. See Pet. 38 (discussing what was known about the Prisma Proton system). But 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) limits inter partes review as allowed “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patent or printed publications.” We decline to use the actual system to fill in gaps in the printed publication. Focusing our attention on the Prisma reference itself, we are only left with Mr. Smith’s conjectures about what a person of ordinary skill “would have known” without sufficient reasoning of how a person of ordinary skill would have combined this knowledge with the reference in precisely this way to arrive at the claim limitation. A rejection based on obviousness requires articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In this case, having carefully reviewed the evidence currently presented, we cannot say that Petitioner has presented sufficient articulated reasoning to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that this limitation would have been obvious in view of the combination presented. Because all of the grounds and challenged claims contain a similar limitation to limitation 1(f) and rely on similar reasoning, we determine that Petitioner has also failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those grounds as well.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,448,855
• Flowco Production Solutions, LLC v. Well Master CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01385 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Flowco did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 3–17 obvious over Victor and Yerian, with or without Davis.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus deny institution of inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) (“At any time prior to a decision on institution of inter partes review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute inter partes review.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “may address the same or similar problems is not adequate to demonstrate motivation to combine, even at this stage of the proceeding. See PO Resp. 22–24; see also Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (concluding that prior art padlocks were analogous art because they “were clearly directed toward the same problem the inventor was trying to solve in the” patent at issue); Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) (Decision Denying Institution) (informative) (“Demonstrating that a reference is analogous art or relevant to the field of endeavor of the challenged patent is not sufficient to establish that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine its teachings with other prior art in the manner set forth in the claim.”). Even so, Patent Owner provides persuasive argument and evidence through its expert, Mr. Cosby, that Victor and Yerian address very different problems and solve these problems in very different ways. See Prelim. Resp. 23–27 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 56–100). Petitioner’s conclusory attorney arguments do not address these differences and how they would impact the motivation to combine the teachings of Victor and Yerian, despite these differences.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,395,865

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.