- Ebay, Inc. v. Lexos Media IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00336 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claim 72 under all three asserted obviousness grounds and granted eBay’s motion to join IPR2023-01000.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be authorized unless the information in the Petition and any preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’102 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented. We also grant Petitioner’s Motion.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Owner argues that Nielsen relies on the HTML protocol and modifications would require changes to the HTML protocol to provide tooltips that appear as part of a cursor, but that Petitioner did not adequately address the real possibility of such a change. PO Prelim. Resp. 22–24. Patent Owner additionally argues that there would not have been a motivation to make changes to Nielsen, because, in Nielsen, the tooltip is not “indiscriminately and automatically displayed in response to cursor movement” but rather is displayed only after cessation of movement over a part of the display with an associated tooltip. Id. at 24 (emphasis removed). These arguments are similar to those made in the preliminary response in the 01000 IPR. See 01000 IPR, Paper 8, 57–59. In the institution decision in the 01000 IPR, we did not determine whether a likelihood of success had been shown for the Nielsen and Malamud ground, but provided initial views for the benefit of the parties, which are applicable in this proceeding as well. 01000 IPR, Paper 10, 33–35. As discussed above, we have made the decision to institute on other grounds, and we note that our institution is necessarily on all grounds in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting ... 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.”).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that Petitioner is time-barred from seeking inter partes review of the ’102 patent and is “improperly using the joinder procedure in an attempt to circumvent” the one-year time bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Opp. 1, 7–8. However, Patent Owner does not persuasively explain, and we do not discern, how filing a petition with a request for joinder properly under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) is an improper use of the joinder procedure to circumvent the one-year time bar. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (providing that joinder must be filed no later than one month after the institution date of the inter partes review for which joinder is requested and that the one-year time bar (§ 42.101(b)) “shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.”)” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant,” who is the Petitioner in this proceeding. Id. Petitioner timely filed its Motion for Joinder on December 20, 2023 (i.e., within one month after the institution of the 01000 IPR on December 12, 2023). See Mot.; 01000 IPR, Paper 9; 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In deciding whether to join a case, we consider (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate, (2) whether the petition raises any new grounds of unpatentability, (3) any impact that joinder would have on the cost and trial schedule for the existing review, and (4) whether joinder will add to the complexity of briefing or discovery. Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15,4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 76 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/tpgnov.pdf. The Petition (1) is substantially identical to the 01000 IPR petition, (2) contains the same grounds based on the same evidence, and (3) relies on the same declaration of Dr. Craig Rosenberg. (Ex. 1003). Mot. 1, 6–9 & n.1. Petitioner represents that joinder will not impact the 01000 IPR schedule. Id. at 4; Reply 5. Petitioner also represents that it “will accept an “understudy” role unless and until [the 01000 petitioner] is terminated from the proceeding.” Mot. 4, 9–10. Petitioner represents that in its understudy role, it agrees that the following conditions will apply: (a) all filings by Petitioner in the joined proceeding be consolidated with the filings of the petitioner in the 01000 IPR, unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve the petitioner in the 01000 IPR; (b) Petitioner shall not be permitted” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 5,995,102 - Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Lexos Media IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Dec 12, 2023 · IPR2023-01001 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 38, and 53 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Malamud and Malamud with Nakagawa.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 38, and 53 of the ’449 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“The Fintiv Memorandum states that “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.” Fintiv Memorandum, 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”)); see id. at 7–9. The Fintiv Memorandum explains that such a stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7. Here, Petitioner provides a Sotera stipulation. Pet. 63. Specifically, Petitioner stipulates that if we institute review, “Petitioner will not pursue the grounds raised, or that reasonably could have been raised, in this IPR.” Id. (referencing Sotera).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We apply a two-part test when evaluating whether to exercise discretion under § 325(d). See Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). Specifically, we consider: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the claimed priority date would have had experience in the fields of human factors engineering or human computer interaction. The POSITA would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human factors engineering, or a related field and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the fields of UI design, or equivalent experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–35). At this time, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition for one of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 28; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’449 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art)” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,118,449 - Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Lexos Media IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Dec 12, 2023 · IPR2023-01000 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claim 72 on all three obviousness grounds: Malamud; Malamud with Nakagawa; and Nielsen with Malamud.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“The Fintiv Memorandum states that “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 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_ proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20 220621_.pdf. been raised before the PTAB.” Fintiv Memorandum, 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”)); see id. at 7–9. The Fintiv Memorandum explains that such a stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“However, as Petitioner correctly asserts, the arguments made in the 1749 IPR were markedly different from the arguments presented in this proceeding with respect to whether and how Malamud teaches “specified content information.”. Pet. 55–56. The 1749 IPR petitioner relied on information in Malamud’s transmitted message that “tells the operating system what type of cursor to display and sets forth the contents and type of information to be displayed in the cursor” (Ex. 1004, 5:49–52) for teaching the “specified content information includ[ing] information that is to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal” (limitation c.i.2) in claim 72. 1749 IPR, Paper 21 (1744 IPR final written decision), 17. This led to a deficiency in the petition’s showing for the recitation (limitation c.ii of claim 72) that the cursor image is modified “responsive to movement of said cursor image over a display of said at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal.” Id. at 17–19, 24–26. It was this argument in the 1749 IPR that was found to be fatal to arguments of unpatentability regarding claim 72 of the ’102 patent and an additional claim at issue in that proceeding. Id. at 25–26 (“Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated how Malamud . . . teaches or suggests this limitation because it has failed to explain how Malamud’s cursor image could exhibit movement over itself.”). Here, however, Petitioner does not rely on Malamud’s transmitted message as including the “specified content information” of limitation c.i.2 as the petition in the 1749 IPR did; rather, Petitioner here relies on the application program in Malamud as including this information. Pet. 34, 37; see infra at § II.E.2. We consider, therefore, with respect to Becton, Dickinson factor (d), this is a significant area in which there is no overlap between the arguments previously made, which were dispositive in the 1749 IPR, and the manner in which Petitioner in this proceeding relies on Malamud. Even though Malamud was before the Board in the 1749 IPR, the arguments presented in the Petition here were not previously considered by the Office.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claim of the ’102 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the claimed priority date would have had experience in the fields of human factors engineering or human computer interaction. The POSITA would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human factors engineering, or a related field and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the fields of UI design, or equivalent experience. 3 The present record contains no evidence or argument relating to secondary considerations. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–35). At this time, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition for one of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 28; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’102 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,995,102 - PTAB · Oct 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00778 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, and 16 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, optics or a related field, and approximately three years of experience in the fields of visual displays, circuit design, and related technologies.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–25). Petitioner states that the Board adopted this formulation in IPR2020-01289, Paper 9, 8–9 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2021). Id. Petitioner also asserts that “[o]ther formulations are also possible but, even if adopted, they would not materially change the analysis or the outcome.” Id. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill without agreeing to it.” Prelim. Resp. 1. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage of the proceeding, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. 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))). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“On the current record, we find that, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Gettemy, Kerman, Rosenzweig, Whitted, and Bell teach this limitation and has provided sufficient rationale to combine the references. First, we credit Dr. Baker’s testimony that “notwithstanding that the system in Gettemy will not permit the user to set the slider below the lower end of the displayed range . . . nothing in Gettemy states that the purpose of summation of the minimum value of the brightness range is to ensure that the final display brightness value used to control the brightness of the display meets a predetermined desired level of brightness.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 324. Thus, Petitioner relies on Whitted and Bell to teach this limitation. As for Patent Owner’s arguments that Whitted and Bell provide “redundant” functionality, we disagree on the current record. Petitioner explains the benefits of adding the functionality from Whitted and Bell as a backstop and to compensate for degradation of conventional displays. Pet. 71–72. Moreover, Dr. Baker provides supporting testimony and citations to additional references in support of Petitioner’s motivation to combine the references, and, accordingly, we disagree with Patent Owner that there is no evidence to support Petitioner’s 15 Patent Owner argues that the Board’s decision in IPR2018-01262 is instructive. Prelim. Resp. 69. We disagree. That decision described several deficiencies in the Petition relating to the “dark level bias” limitation (see IPR2018-01262, Paper 14, 12–16), and Patent Owner oversimplifies the Board’s findings by quoting from one paragraph in the decision. contentions. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 336 (citing Ex. 1019, 1020, 1021). In addition, Patent Owner’s arguments that Whitted and Bell do not disclose the “dark level bias” address Whitted and Bell individually, rather than on the combination as proposed by Petitioner, with Gettemy, Kerman, and Rosenzweig, and are therefore not persuasive on this record. The parties may wish to further develop the record as to the foregoing issues during trial.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Gettemy, Kerman, and Rosenzweig teach this limitation and has provided sufficient rationale to combine the references. Petitioner’s arguments that sliders were “commonly used” is supported by the disclosure in both Kerman and Rosenzweig. Ex. 1014, 39 (Kerman describing that a slider is “a popular user interface”); Ex. 1015, 44 (Rosenzweig describing a slider as “a familiar user interface element used in all major software programs”). Petitioner relies on Kerman and Rosenzweig to explicitly explain how Gettemy’s conventional slider is implemented. Pet. 57. Patent Owner’s arguments largely address the references individually, rather than on the combination as proposed by Petitioner, where Kerman and Rosenzweig are relied upon for the underlying technical functionality of Gettemy’s slider. See Soft Gel Techs., Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 864 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We find persuasive Dr. Baker’s testimony that “[a]n ordinarily skilled artisan, seeking to implement the brightness control system of Gettemy, would thus have been motivated to rely on the teachings of Kerman and Rosenzweig to better understand how to implement the slider controls in Gettemy, including the precise formula that produces the exact display brightness values exhibited in Gettemy.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 319. Further, we disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner and Dr. Baker have made up an equation. The equations relied upon by Petitioner are directly from the Kerman and Rosenzweig references. See Pet. 57, 58, 62–64. Based on our review and consideration of the current record, we determine that, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Gettemy, Kerman, and Rosenzweig teaches limitation 1(c) and has provided reasons sufficiently supported by factual underpinnings to combine the reference teachings with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,223,117 - Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2017-01928 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11–17, and 21–24 are unpatentable over Burns with Uy or AlphaGrip; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable because Burns does not teach detachable paddles.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“rendered claims 3–8 and 18–20 unpatentable. Valve, 8 F.4th at 1381. The Federal Circuit reversed our determination that Burns was not prior art. Id. at 1381. The Federal Circuit also vacated our determination that Valve had failed to prove that collectively claims 1, 2, 9–17, and 21–24 were unpatentable as obvious in view of Burns in combination with either Uy or AlphaGrip. Id. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to us to consider Valve’s challenges to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 9–17, and 21–24 of the ’229 patent as obvious based on the combinations of prior art listed in the table below. Claims6 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 2, 9, 10, 14–17, 21–24 103 Burns, Uy 1, 2, 9–17, 21, 22 103 Burns, AlphaGrip Id. C. Remand Background On remand, we authorized the parties to concurrently file an opening brief and then concurrently file responsive reply briefs. Paper 44, 4. The parties agreed, and we concurred, that no new evidence would be submitted during the remand proceeding. Id. at 3. Accordingly, we decide the issues on remand based on the record that was submitted during the original trial.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Valve contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have: a bachelor’s degree in an industrial design or engineering field, and approximately two years of relevant experience, for example. Alternatively, the same or an equivalent level of skill in the art could be obtained by end users or hobbyists who have substantial experience modifying or creating customized game controllers that include features to better suit their needs, even without any college education. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 11). Ironburg, without expressly defining the level of ordinary skill, contends that a college degree of the type identified by Valve is not required. See Supp. PO Resp. 4–6. Ironburg notes that the level of ordinary skill is “relatively low” and the technology involved “is simple and straightforward.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 21). Ironburg’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill are consistent with Valve’s position, id. at 6, which we apply in our analysis. D. Whether AlphaGrip Is a Prior Art Printed Publication” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We find Ironburg’s critique of Mr. Willner’s testimony unavailing. Valve persuasively responds that Mr. Willner testifies that he personally recalls reviewing AlphaGrip on the internet during 2006, which significantly predates the filing of the oldest application in the priority chain of the ’229 patent, May 22, 2013, by at least six years. Compare Ex. 1009 ¶ 3 (testifying that online publication of AlphaGrip happened in 2006), with Ex. 1001, code (60) (identifying provisional application filed May 22, 2013, as earliest-filed priority application). Mr. Willner testifies that he is the inventor and designer of the controller that is reviewed in AlphaGrip, which we find to qualify him as an ordinarily skilled artisan. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1–3. Besides expressly testifying that he viewed AlphaGrip online during 2006, Mr. Willner also testifies in some detail about his recollection of his interactions with the author of AlphaGrip, Ryan Paul, and the events surrounding the publication of Mr. Paul’s review on Arstechnica’s website. Id. ¶¶ 4–5. Mr. Willner also reviews the version of AlphaGrip that Valve submitted as prior art and testifies that it is a true and correct copy of the review that he remembers seeing online during 2006. Id. ¶¶ 6–7. We find Mr. Willner’s testimony to be reliable in part because he recalls being “delighted” by the praise Mr. Paul lavished on the AlphaGrip controller. Id. ¶ 8. The publication of AlphaGrip marked an important event for Mr. Willner’s company. Mr. Willner states that he immediately posted a link on his own company’s website to Arstechnica’s AlphaGrip review in 2006, and his company maintains the link to Arstechnica’s review of AlphaGrip “to this day.” Id. We find that all these facts increase the probative value of Mr. Willner’s testimony on the issue of whether AlphaGrip was published and could easily have been found by interested persons during 2006. Although Mr. Willner may not have been a webpage manager for Arstechnica or be able to testify about precisely how many people accessed AlphaGrip in 2006, we find his testimony, as one of skill in the art himself to be compelling. Not only has Ironburg failed to refute any of Mr. Willner’s testimony with countervailing evidence, Ironburg did not cross-examine Mr. Willner to test his memory of the specific events set forth in his testimony. See PO Resp. 16–18 (failing to provide countervailing evidence or cite cross examination testimony).” slip op. at 12
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“We also disagree with Ironburg that we should exclude as hearsay or irrelevant Dr. Rempel’s testimony on how flexible the Burns’ paddles were or the extensive body of objective evidence cited and relied upon by him to support his testimony.9 Mot. 12–13. To the contrary, we agree with Valve that Dr. Rempel may properly rely upon the cited exhibits even if they would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay because they constitute the types of information upon which an expert would reasonably rely under Fed. R. Evid. 703. Opp. 10. Accordingly, we deny-in-part the Motion to the extent that it seeks to strike or exclude testimony in Dr. Rempel’s second declaration or Exhibits 1020, 1025, 1026, 1031, 1036, 1042 cited by Dr. Rempel in support of his analysis.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,352,229 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,352,229 - Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2017-00858 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand
Claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29 were not shown unpatentable as obvious because Valve did not provide a reasoned basis to combine Burns with the design references.
RulingsRemand decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“testimony relating to the combinations of Burns with LaCelle or Knight, it falls short of providing a reasoned basis for modifying Burns. Dr. Rempel merely opines that incorporating the curved shapes of back controls from LaCelle or Knight into Burns would result in a back control that “could have better coupling with the user’s finger than the flat paddles that are otherwise disclosed by Burns.” Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 39–40 (emphasis added). In other words, modifying Burns in view of LaCelle or Knight might improve Burns. Dr. Rempel testified that the modification “could” improve Burns, not that it “would” improve Burns. The possibility of improvement, which also allows that Burns would not be improved, fails to rise to the level of “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we find such testimony to be insufficient to demonstrate that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Burns in view of LaCelle or Knight. After considering the parties’ briefing, we conclude that Valve’s arguments and supporting evidence for combining teachings of Burns with each one of the Design References, excluding the untimely evidence submitted with Valve’s Supplemental Reply, are unpersuasive. Neither the Petition nor the evidence cited in the Petition cogently explains what advantage would be provided by the alternative control geometries of Burns and each of the Design References. A petitioner cannot demonstrate obviousness “by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). Here, we find that Valve proffers conclusions without sufficient reasoning or objective evidence to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the elements from the prior art to arrive at the claimed controllers.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“this simple and predictable art, and the results would not have been unexpected.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 21, 27, 32). Dr. Rempel cites no objective evidence to support this cited testimony, which largely parrots Valve’s brief. Compare id., with Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 21, 27, 32. Dr. Rempel’s testimony is entitled to less weight because it is not supported by underlying facts or data. See 37 CFR § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 15
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“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.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). “All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We find that: (1) Valve proffered new testimony to fill the gaps that we identified in the Institution Decision and (2) presenting such testimony in the reply constitutes untimely new argument and evidence that must have been presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,289,688 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,289,688 - Intel Corporation v. XMTT, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 11, 2021 · IPR2020-00145 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–39 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not address the construed system-level processing modes, and Nakaya’s synchronization did not mark the claimed transition.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“adapted to execute “primarily” in serial, and serial memory adapted to store data for use by the serial processor in executing the software instructions “substantially” in serial. Ex. 1001, 3:1–6. That embodiment also includes a plurality of parallel processors adapted to execute “substantially” in parallel. Id. at 2:59–67. Significantly, independent claim 32 refers to the serial processor both as adapted to execute “primarily” in serial, and as adapted to execute “substantially” in serial. Ex. 1001, 16:17–23. In light of these teachings, we find that the Specification uses the terms “primarily” and “substantially” interchangeably. In a context similar to that of the claims at issue, “substantially” has been interpreted to mean “largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See, e.g., York Prods. v. Cent. Tractor and Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). That interpretation is consistent with the claim language and the Specification. Returning to the language of claim 1, we determine that “a serial processing mode” refers to the system executing primarily in serial on the serial processor. Likewise, “a parallel processing mode” refers to the system executing primarily in parallel on the parallel processors. The Specification supports that interpretation. Specifically, the Specification describes that the system may make a hard switch from “serial processing mode” to “parallel processing mode,” or may switch from “primarily serial processing” to “primarily parallel processing.” Ex. 1001, 11:46–52; see also id. at 1:58–61, 3:34–35; 5:6–48, 6:54–56; 8:3–5; 10:36–41. Therefore, the Specification explicitly describes primarily serial processing as an example of a serial processing mode, and likewise describes primarily parallel processing as an example of a parallel processing mode. This suggests that a serial processor as claimed must be adapted to execute in a serial processing mode (a mode of executing so that the system is executing primarily in serial). Likewise, the parallel processor must be adapted to execute in a parallel processing mode (a mode of executing so that the system is executing primarily in serial). We return to the language of claim 1 having determined that: “adapted to” means “configured to,” “primarily” means “largely but not wholly,” and the serial and parallel processing modes each refer to the execution of the system as a whole. Thus, the claimed serial processor must be configured to have a serial processing mode (a mode where the system executes largely but not wholly in serial on the serial processor). Likewise, the parallel processors must be configured to have a parallel processing mode (a mode where the system executes largely but not wholly in parallel on the parallel processors).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“There is very little difference between the skill levels asserted by the parties. As we pointed out in the Institution Decision, the parties only disagree with regard to two of the factors relevant to the level of skill in the art. See Dec. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the many other factors that influence the level of skill in the art. Further, also as pointed out in the Institution Decision, Patent Owner’s broader recitation of experience in “general computer architecture” would include experience with both serial and parallel processing. Id. In the Response, Patent Owner chose not to dispute other factors of the level of skill inquiry, and chose not to dispute that general experience would include experience with parallel computing architectures.5 We determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of ’388 patent would have had either a Bachelor’s or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and would have had about three years of experience in computer architecture that 5 We informed the parties they could further address the level of skill during the trial. Dec. 13. included experience with both serial and parallel processing. Our reasoning follows.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition must identify how the construed claim is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). We analyze the limitation at issue as addressed by the Petition.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Nakaya’s system changes the ratio of serial to parallel processors at T6, not at T8 (synchronization). Specifically, prior to T6, the system is processing on four serial and four parallel processors, and after time T6, the system is processing on one serial and seven parallel processors. Nakaya’s processor ratio change is akin to the claimed transition from serial processing mode to parallel processing mode. At T8, the ratio of serial to parallel processors being used by the system remains the same (one to seven). That is, at the moment Petitioner contends corresponds to the claimed transition from serial to parallel processing, there is actually no change in the ratio of serial to parallel processors in use by Nakaya’s system. We emphasize that the Petition is deficient because it fails to adequately address how the prior art discloses or suggests a serial processor configured to execute so that the system executes largely but not wholly in serial on the serial processor. Likewise, the Petition does not adequately address how the prior art discloses or suggests a parallel processor adapted to execute so that the system executes largely but not wholly in parallel on the parallel processor.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 7,707,388 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,707,388 - PTAB · Mar 9, 2021 · IPR2020-01283 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘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.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A motivation to combine the teachings of two references can be “found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.” Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012)); see also Intelligent Bio- Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“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))). Therefore, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’n. Equip. LLC, 701 F. App’x 978, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The separate naming of two structures in the claim strongly implies that the named entities are not one and the same structure.”). Claims 1 and 15 recite the “user [input] signal” and the “dark level bias” as separate and distinct elements of the claimed “brightness control circuit” and method. Claim 1 recites “a first input configured to receive a user signal indicative of a user selectable brightness setting,” with “a multiplier configured to selectively generate a combined signal based on both the user signal and the sensing signal,” and “a dark level bias configured to adjust the combined signal to generate a brightness control signal . . .” Ex. 1001, 12:30–43. Claim 15 recites similar limitations in method form. Id. at 13:36–14:9. In other words, the dark level bias adjusts a combined signal that is generated based on both the user signal and the sensing signal. slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“First, Petitioner asserts that Ottenstein discloses that it will maintain the sensing signal at least “10% of full scale” when the ambient light level decreases to approximately zero. Pet. 63. We disagree. Ottenstein states: Further for very low ambient light levels, a night mode should be used in place of auto mode. Thus the automatic brightness control need not and should not operate at low ambient light levels, say less than 10% of maximum. The sensed ambient brightness level should be limited so that it is always at least 10% of full scale. Ex. 1012, 3:66–4:4. We agree with Patent Owner that Ottenstein does not disclose that the sensing signal is maintained above a certain level; rather, Ottenstein refers to the bottom of the ambient light range that should be used in auto mode before switching to night mode. See Prelim. Resp. 73. Moreover, Petitioner contends that maintaining the sensing signal at this level would be implemented using one of two techniques: (1) “the sensed signal should be replaced with a dark level bias that is 10% of full scale brightness” or (2) “the dark level bias can be added to the ambient light signal.” Pet. 63. However the claim recites “a dark level bias configured to adjust the combined signal . . .” Ex. 1001, 12:38 (emphasis added). Both of the constructions advanced by Petitioner for this limitation also require a “deviation from the combined signal” or “a dark level bias . . . to adjust the combined signal.” Pet. 18 (emphasis added). Neither of Petitioner’s two proposed implementations teach adjusting the combined signal; rather, Petitioner proposes either replacing the sensed signal or adding the dark level bias to the ambient light signal. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that either of the two proposed techniques teach limitation 1[D].” slip op. at 40
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,223,117 - Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00043 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing but denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“We have considered Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and, for the reasons set forth below, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, but we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“III. DISCUSSION OF THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING On May 4, 2020, we issued our Decision denying institution of inter partes review based upon: (1) the advanced stage of the California District Court proceeding; (2) the investment of time and resources by the District Court and the parties in the California District Court proceeding; (3) overlap in the invalidity theories that Petitioner is pursuing here and in the California District Court proceeding; and (4) overlap in the claims challenged in the California District Court proceeding. Inst. Dec. 6–12. In the Decision, we did not reach any of the ten substantive grounds for patentability. See generally Inst. Dec. Rather, the denial of institution was solely based on our findings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and 37 C.F.R. §42.4. Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2012); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”) For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the arguments and evidence of record, we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review.7” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDenied
“The petition must identify with particularity each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) (content of petitions); 37 C.F.R. 42.104 (content of petition). Petitioner’s conclusory statements, without more, are irreparably lacking in detail. Petitioner does not provide any analysis to support the assertion of obviousness over Oki. In fact, Petitioner instead asserts that Oki discloses all of the limitations in each of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 15, 16, and 18, so it is unclear what modification, if any, is required to Oki, or even the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. E.g., Pet. 28– 33. Petitioner does not clearly point out the differences between the claimed invention and Oki. Nor does Petitioner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed subject matter obvious in spite of those differences. Petitioner has not provided sufficient reasoning or facts on which to base a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, in light of Oki’s disclosure, to modify Oki to meet the claim limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on this ground of unpatentability.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,223,117 - Ralph Lauren Corporation v. Lexos Media IP, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01755 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 27, 33, 40, 41, 72, 81, and 82 are unpatentable under § 103; the remaining challenged claims are not determined unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“Decision issues under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Having considered the evidence of record, and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 27, 33, 40, 41, 72, 81 and 82 of the ’449 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–7, 12– 15, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 53–56, 58–63, 73–75, and 77–80 of the ’449 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a master’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or a related field, or hold a bachelor’s degree in Computer 4 The record contains no evidence relating to secondary considerations. Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and have at least two years of relevant work experience in the fields of UI [(user interface)] design and OSs.” Pet. 10–11. In the Institution Decision, we preliminary adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition, noting that the prior art in this case demonstrated the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Inst. Dec. 10 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Patent Owner does not comment on or dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and instead cites Okajima’s holding regarding the level of skill in the prior art without raising any issues regarding whether the prior art here reflects a level of ordinary skill different from that proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 10 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). We adopt Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the ’449 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Petitioner proposed construction of several claim terms in the Petition. Pet. 12–18. However, none of these claim terms require construction to resolve the controversy. Petitioner also argued for a construction of an additional term (“wherein said specified content information further comprises information to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal”) in its Reply. Pet. Reply 13. Patent Owner contends that this argument is a new argument raised improperly for the first time in the Reply. PO Sur-Reply 10–11. We agree. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding ... patent owner response.” See also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). Therefore, we will not address the new construction proposed for this claim term.” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“A petitioner must choose which grounds of invalidity to assert in the petition and “the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio- Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Circ. 2017) (a petitioner is foreclosed from “shifting” in post-petition arguments to a new theory of prima facie obviousness based on a different passage of a prior art reference than was used in the petition); see PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019,5 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie 5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated case of unpatentability.”); Trial Practice Guide Update August 2018,6 14 (same). Therefore, we evaluate Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation [c.i] relying upon Malamud’s message relating to a preview cursor in Malamud to teach the “specified content information.” Patent Owner does not make any arguments relating to whether Malamud’s message, in view of the teachings of Anthias, teaches limitation [c.i] of claim 1. See, e.g., PO Resp. 9–18.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,118,449 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,118,449
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.