- PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00282 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4 and 7–9 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 7–9 are obvious over Edwards-’535 and Stern.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the relevant time would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in engineering or a related discipline and (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices, including medical devices that deliver energy to tissue. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–28). Patent Owner does not address the skill level in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner argues that the preamble of claim 1 “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting. Pet. 18. According to Petitioner, the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete apparatus, and the preamble only states an intended use for the device without limiting the claimed structure. Id. at 18–19. Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction. On this record, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive and determine that the preamble of claim 1 “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any other claim term.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We still “must further consider the factual questions of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine those references, and whether in making that combination, a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success.” Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee, 799 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, we find Petitioner has shown sufficiently that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,766,286 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00278 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15–17 on all grounds presented in the Petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Considering the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that the Petition demonstrates “a reasonable likelihood that [P]etitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in engineering or a related discipline and (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices, including medical devices that deliver energy to tissue. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–28). Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s description of a POSITA in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends “the Board need not construe any terms because the Challenged Claims are invalid under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 20. At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to this contention, nor propose any express claim construction of its own. For this decision, and given that neither party seeks any express claim construction, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. To the extent our consideration of Petitioner’s grounds touches on any implicit issues of claim construction, those are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“several reasons. First, Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Edwards-535 and Stern is supported by testimony from Dr. Martin who identifies multiple, specific reasons for the combination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–122, 129–148. This testimony is not conclusory and is supported with numerous citations to other evidence of record. Id. Patent Owner does not offer any countervailing testimony with its Preliminary Response, electing instead to rely on attorney argument at this stage. Second, Patent Owner’s assertions that Petitioner’s reasoning is insufficient because Stern describes treating the endometrium and ablating different tissue, i.e., surface versus underlying tissue, are undermined by Edwards-535’s citation to Baker. As Petitioner points out, “Edwards-’535 points a POSITA” to, and incorporates teachings from, Baker. Pet. 47. This is true even though Baker, like Stern, is largely focused on treating the uterus and describes preferred embodiments for delivering RF energy to the endometrium. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, Abstr., 3:5–9, 5:50–65. Moreover, Petitioner offers evidence to show that Baker and Stern depict similar devices, including the figure from Dr. Martin’s declaration reproduced below. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–119, 144–147. Dr. Martin’s figure above is a side-by-side comparison of Figure 8 of Baker and Figure 4a of Stern, depicting devices that, at least on their face, appear to share a similar shape and configuration. See id. ¶¶ 119, 146 (testifying that the comparison above shows “Baker and Stern both depict very similar devices”). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner’s comparison is apt, nor otherwise address Petitioner’s reliance on Baker as evidence of a motivation to combine Stern. Thus, on the current record, we agree with Petitioner that Edwards-535’s express citation to Baker suggests that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the similar teachings Petitioner identifies in Stern. Third, Stern also contradicts Patent Owner’s assertion that a POSITA would have considered its teachings to be inapplicable to treating the nasal concha as taught in Edwards-535. While Stern is primarily concerned with endometrial ablation applications, that does not mean its teachings are limited to such. Indeed, Stern explains that its “electrode partitioning structure” may be used to treat “other body organs or tissues either externally or internally” and that its “principles with respect to the delivery of controlled RF energy” can be applied “not only for controlled destruction of tissue but also for controlled heat treatment of tissue.” Id. Such teachings further support the testimony of Dr. Martin that “[a] POSITA would have known that technology from ablation devices for one part of the body would be applicable to devices used in other areas of the body.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117–121; Ex. 1033, 18:27–40). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Edwards-535 and Stern are so in conflict with one another that they rise to the level of teaching away.” Prelim. Resp. 21. A teaching away requires that the reference “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). But Patent Owner has not shown that any of the references cited here discourage the articulated combination of Stern’s electrode configuration, i.e., multiple pairs of bipolar electrodes connected to separate radiofrequency output channels, with Edwards-535’s device. To the contrary, Stern expressly states that its “electrode partitioning structure” can be used for other applications (see Ex. 1033, 18:27–40), which on the current record would seem to include Edwards-535’s device for ablating nasal tissue.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,033,318 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00277 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–4, 6–12, and 16 on all asserted grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Edwards-535, Kong, and Stern obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Considering the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that the Petition demonstrates “a reasonable likelihood that [P]etitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in engineering or a related discipline and (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices, including medical devices that deliver energy to tissue. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 24–28). Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s description of a POSITA in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends “the Board need not construe any terms because the Challenged Claims are invalid under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 21. At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to this contention, nor propose any express claim construction of its own. For this decision, and given that neither party seeks any express claim construction, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. To the extent our consideration of Petitioner’s grounds touches on any implicit issues of claim construction, those are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“On the current record, Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing for several reasons. First, Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Edwards-535 and Stern is supported by testimony from its declarants who identify multiple, specific reasons for the combination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–94; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 75–97. This testimony is not conclusory and is supported with numerous citations to other evidence of record. Id. Patent Owner does not offer any countervailing testimony with its Preliminary Response, electing instead to rely on attorney argument at this stage. Second, Patent Owner’s assertions that Petitioner’s reasoning is insufficient because Stern describes treating the endometrium and ablating a different tissue, i.e., surface versus underlying tissue, are undermined by Edwards-535’s citation to Baker. As Petitioner points out, “Edwards-’535 instructs a POSITA to look to Baker for how to dispose electrodes on the surface of a membrane.” Pet. 47. This is true even though Baker, like Stern, is largely focused on treating the uterus and describes preferred embodiments for delivering RF energy to the endometrium. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, Abstr., 3:5–9, 5:50–65. Moreover, Petitioner offers evidence, including the figure reproduced below, to show that “Baker and Stern depict similar devices for ablating tissue.” Pet. 46. Petitioner’s figure above is a side-by-side comparison of Figure 8 of Baker and Figure 4a of Stern, depicting devices that, at least on their face, appear to share a similar shape and configuration. Petitioner offers a similar figure showing that both Baker and Stern teach the arrangement of “electrodes in rows.” See id. at 47 (showing side-by-side comparison of Figure 8 of Baker to Figure 19 of Stern). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner’s comparisons are apt, nor otherwise address Petitioner’s reliance on Baker as evidence of a motivation to combine Stern. Thus, on the current record, we agree with Petitioner that Edwards-535’s express citation to Baker suggests that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the similar teachings Petitioner identifies in Stern.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,241,271 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00342 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang and over Prajapat and Wang; the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“3. May Not Enlarge the Claim Scope An amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the” slip op. at 87
- Strike new argumentDenied
“comprise briefs filed by Petitioner in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the parallel district court litigation involving the challenged patents. The exhibits were submitted together with Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 33). We have not relied on Exhibit 2006 or Exhibit 2007 in our analysis. Accordingly, we deny the motion as moot.” slip op. at 9
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2005–” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining compatible embodiments, and we credit Dr. Lieberman’s testimony because he supports his testimony with a passage from Lebrun that is consistent with his conclusion. Id. (stating “Lebrun describes several ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ which includes a subsection of ‘multiple group surfing channels.’ Ex. 1005, 37:19, 43:5 (emphasis in original).”). Consistent with Lebrun’s description, Dr. Lieberman opines, and we agree, that “[a] POSITA would understand ‘multiple group surfing channels’ would be one example/scenario of the ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ and the latter encompasses the former and the two embodiments are compatible and combinable.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 18.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 8,527,591 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,527,591 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,483,448 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,145 - PTAB · Apr 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00028 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Flusberg, Flusberg ’338, and PacBio-BAM.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In assessing whether to exercise the Board’s authority to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board considers a two-part analysis. Advanced Bionics at 8–9. First, the Board considers whether “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. Id. at 8. If so, the Board then considers whether the petition demonstrates that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. In applying the two-part framework, the Board considers several nonexclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, No. IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“G. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to obviousness over Flusberg, Flusberg ’338, and PacBio-BAM. H. Remaining Claims of Ground 1 and Grounds 2–4 Patent Owner does not present any arguments specific to any claim beyond claim 1. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1 (“Because all other asserted Grounds rely upon prevailing on Ground 1 for claim 1, all other grounds fail for the same reasons.”). In any event, the threshold for institution is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to any single claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the [P]etitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). Thus, because we have decided to grant review of claim 1, we do the same for all claims challenged and all grounds raised. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When 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.”). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is granted and inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,091,794 B2 on the grounds presented; and” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Other
“Petitioner argues that an input data structure having the recited combination of properties would have been obvious, in part, because all such properties were identified and could be measured in the prior art. For example, according to Petitioner, “[i]n addition to encoding the identity and relative locations of each nucleotide, PacBio-BAM encodes the PW and IPD of each nucleotide as integer arrays.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1011, 8). This argument is supported by the cited evidence. Under a section titled “Encoding of kinetics pulse features,” PacBio-BAM states: “Interpulse duration (IPD) and pulsewidth are measured in frames [and] . . . may be encoded in BAM read tags” and further states such information relates to “base modification detection.” Ex. 1011, 8. Petitioner also notes that Flusberg and Flusberg ’338 teach that PW and IPD are affected by nucleotide modifications. Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1007, 66:46–67:4, 9:41–46; 22:49–54; Figs. 12, 13, and 15–19; Ex. 1006, 462, Fig. 3). For example, Flusberg ’338 teaches: In certain aspects, the invention provides a general-purpose approach to discriminating between Me+ and Me- using features in a real-time sequencing-by-synthesis trace comprising signals emitted during the incorporation of optically detectable nucleotides into a nascent strand by a polymerase enzyme. . . . A first stage of this approach includes the development of a classifier for distinguishing methylated from unmethylated cytosines in a nucleic acid template. A set of features is measured for every pulse (discrete event or signal) in the trace. For example, a set of measurable features might be {pulse width, pulse duration, pulse height, pulse amplitude variability}. Ex. 1007, 64:46–59 (emphasis added). Similarly, Flusberg states: Fluorescence pulses in SMRT sequencing are characterized not only by their emission spectra but also by their duration and by the interval between successive pulses. These metrics, defined here as pulse width and interpulse duration (IPD), add valuable information about DNA polymerase kinetics. Pulse width is a function of all kinetic steps after nucleotide binding and up to fluorophore release, and IPD is determined by the kinetics of nucleotide binding and polymerase translocation. We have previously demonstrated that SMRT sequencing polymerase synthesis rates are sensitive to DNA primary and secondary structure. Therefore, we hypothesized that methylated bases in a DNA template might be detected directly on the principle that their presence affects polymerase kinetics during SMRT sequencing. Ex. 1006, 462 (emphasis added; end notes omitted). Petitioner argues that “PacBio-BAM teaches creating an input data” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“4. Reason To Combine Petitioner points out that (1) each of Flusberg and Flusberg ’338 teach methods of detecting nucleotide modifications using SMRT sequencing, and (2) PacBio-BAM teaches a BAM file containing values for all claimed properties generated in the course of SMRT sequencing. Pet. 29. Petitioner argues with supporting evidence, that it would have been obvious “to use PacBio’s BAM file containing the recited properties as an input data structure, as expressly suggested in PacBio-BAM.” Id. at 29–30; see also Ex. 1002 ¶82 (Dr. Dessimoz providing his opinion in support of the combination); Pet. 30–33 (providing additional arguments and evidence to support the combination). Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner fails to provide motivation to combine Flusberg with the other two references of Ground 1 to arrive at the claimed invention.” Prelim. Resp. 45. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner makes no argument for why Flusberg and the ’338 patent would be combined, let alone why a POSITA would selectively combine various aspects of each reference and include features not used in either reference to arrive.” Id. Patent Owner premises its argument on a purported failure by Flusberg ’338 to incorporate by reference the entire Flusberg reference as opposed to limited aspects of its. Id. at 45–46. Flusberg ’338 patent twice states that Flusberg is “incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.” Ex. 1007, 77:30–24, 78:58–66. Patent Owner argues that what is incorporated by reference is only the specific content of Flusberg that is mentioned by Flusberg ’338. Prelim. Resp. 46. Patent Owner cites Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., No. IPR2017-01407, 2018 WL 6321395, at *18–19 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) in support. Id. Patent Owner additionally points out that, if either incorporation by reference successfully incorporated the entire Flusberg disclosure, then the other incorporation by reference would be superfluous. Prelim. Resp. 46–47. This last point is logical, but the totality of the facts, as discussed below, better support Petitioner’s position. In Nautilus, the Board interpreted the following incorporation by reference language: “The ’088 Application provides ‘One example of customizing a work-out that may be utilized in conjunction with the exercise apparatus described herein is set forth in U.S. Patent Application No. 13/754,361, filed on Jan. 30, 2013, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.’” Nautilus, 2018 WL 6321395, at *19. The Board found that the word “disclosure” could refer to either the example being discussed or the entire disclosure of the ’088 Application, and the Board ultimately held that what was incorporated by reference was the example of customizing a work-out only and not the entirety of the ’088 Application. Id. Nautilus is not precedential. Moreover, its facts are different. Here, we have statements that Flusberg is incorporated by reference both “in its entirety” and “for all purposes.” Ex. 1007, 77:30–24, 78:58–66. Further, the Board’s holding in Nautilus explicitly hinged on its understanding of the word “disclosure” in the following phrase: “the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.” Nautilus, 2018 WL 6321395, at *19. The Board held that, “as a matter of grammar, the antecedent of the ‘disclosure’ being incorporated could be either the application or ‘one example’ that is described in the application.” Id. Here, the rules of grammar contradict Patent Owner’s position, rather than support it. For example, the first incorporation by reference states: “Further details on the detection of N6-MeA, as well as other modifications within a template nucleic acid, are provided in Flusberg, et al. (2010) Nature Methods 7(6):461–465, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.” Ex. 1007, 77:30–24 (emphasis added). The word “its” can refer to only one thing, Flusberg itself, as the alternative would be plural nouns, namely “details” and “other modifications,” and thus inconsistent with the singular “its.” In sum, we find that, on the current record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown a motivation to combine Flusberg and Flusberg ’338 with PacBio- BAM.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,091,794 - Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 25, 2024 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR of claims 1–24 on all asserted grounds; the Board found the §103 challenges more likely than not to render claim 1 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Skill Each party puts forth a characterization of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of the claims of the ’795 patent. (See Pet. 13 (citing Crowley Decl., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 90–91); see Prelim. Resp. 3–4.) The parties’ proposed characterizations of the ordinarily skilled artisan are sufficiently similar that adoption of either would lead to the same result, institution. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision only, we adopt Patent Owner’s characterization of the ordinarily skilled artisan as having a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as, chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least two years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations, and access to one or more team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals, or, in the alternative, at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations, and access to one or more team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Prelim. Resp. 3–4.) We also note that the level of skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan is revealed by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error “the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163, 225 USPQ 34, 38 (Fed.Cir.1985)).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner puts forth constructions of certain terms used in the claims of the ’795 patent. (See Pet. 14–19.) Patent Owner does not dispute any of these constructions specifically, but at this point, argues that we need not construe any terms “to resolve the present controversy.” (Prelim. Resp. 2.) We agree that an express construction is not required at this point in the proceeding. 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, at this point in the proceeding, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because it does not address the teachings in the prior art that Petitioner asserts would render the formulations claimed in the ’795 patent obvious.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,617,795 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1, 11, and 16 under the Downs/EDACS and Kim grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“A. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and deny the Petition in view of the related lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)). However, Petitioner has since filed a Sotera stipulation, so named based on Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). See Ex. 1035. Thus, pursuant to the Interim Procedure, we will not discretionarily deny the Petition based on the related lawsuit. See Interim Procedure at 3 (“Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.”).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In assessing whether to exercise the Board’s authority to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board considers a two-part analysis. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, No. IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). First, in Part One, the Board considers whether “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. Id. at 8. If so, in Part Two, the Board then considers whether the petition demonstrates that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. In applying the two-part framework, the Board considers several nonexclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, No. IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,831,664 - PTAB · Mar 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01295 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 on both § 103 grounds: Shaffer with Saylor, and Gogic with Opitz.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the prosecution history. After the Examiner issued a final rejection of then-pending claim 1 (Ex. 1003, 125–138), Applicant amended claim 1 by adding the following limitations:” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“informing the Board of the stipulation Petitioner made to Patent Owner on December 27, 2023. Paper 8, 5 (citing Ex. 1034). The Stipulation reads: Motorola Solutions, Inc. stipulates that, if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes an IPR proceeding for U.S. Patent No. 8,994,830 on the grounds presented in the petition in IPR2023- 01295, Motorola Solutions, Inc. will not pursue an invalidity defense in the district court action (STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. Id. Petitioner has filed a stipulation that it “will not pursue an invalidity defense in the district court action (STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR.” Ex. 1034. Petitioner contends that its “Sotera stipulation moots Patent Owner’s (‘PO’) Fintiv arguments.” Prelim. Repl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034; Ex. 1032, 3). Patent Owner does not respond, in the Preliminary Sur-reply, to Petitioner’s Reply argument regarding discretionary denial or argue that we nevertheless should deny the Petition in light of Petitioner’s stipulation. See, generally, Prelim. Sur-Reply. Upon consideration of these factors and the parties’ arguments, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition in light of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation. See Guidance Memo 7.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Conclusion as to Independent Claim 1 We have considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties with respect to independent claim 1. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of institution that the combined teachings of Shaffer and Saylor meet all the limitations of independent claim 1 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had reason to combine their teachings in the manner described, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 53
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person having “at least (a) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (b) approximately 2 years industry experience in networking or communication systems, including interoperating different types of networks that include video feeds.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 45–47). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears to be consistent with the subject matter of the ’830 patent. This is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Polish. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. D. Claim Construction” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,994,830
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.