- The Boeing Company v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00761 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–24 not unpatentable because the asserted references did not show the glass element propagating a modified stress wave to generate tensile stress at the interface.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’684 patent “would have had an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering or a related field, and at least five years of experience using laser systems to characterize and test mechanical behavior in materials” and that “[m]ore education may supplement practical experience or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38). Patent Owner” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner
“Both parties maintain that no claim term needs to be construed. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40); PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner, however, provides an express construction for limitation [1.d] of independent claim 1 and the similar limitation of independent claim 13, namely limitation [13.c]. PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 25). To resolve the controversy before us, we determine that these limitations require express construction. 1. “the glass element is configured to propagate and modify a stress wave to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile stress between the substrate and the coating” (limitation [1.d]) and “propagating and modifying a stress wave through the glass element to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile force between the substrate and the coating” (limitation [13.c]) Patent Owner argues these limitations mean “changing the profile of the laser generated compressive wave and propagating the wave profile as modified to the free surface of the coating, which upon reflection from the free surface as a tension wave generates a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 25). Petitioner does not refute this proposed construction and, during the oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it agrees with the proposed construction. Tr. 8:16–9:12. We so no reason to depart from the parties agreed-upon construction of limitations [1.d] and [13.c]. Accordingly, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt the parties’ construction of limitations [1.d] and [13.c].” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“a shock in the compression wave in the fused silica substrate. Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that Wang-Dissertation’s fused silica substrate modifies the compression waveform, we would not be persuaded that the fused silica substrate propagates the modified wave to the free surface of the coating, which upon reflection from the free surface as a tension wave generates a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface, as limitation [1.d] requires. In view of the presence of tension-wave-1 in Wang-Dissertation’s experiments, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated persuasively that the fused silica substrate propagates a modified stress wave to the free surface of the coating to generate a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface. Also, we find credible Dr. Gupta’s unrebutted testimony that any modified compression wave would attenuate in the substrate and not propagate to the free surface coating or generate a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface. Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 93–98. Petitioner does not dispute that the experiments in Wang-Dissertation include tension-wave-1. See Ex. 1005, 65 (“The experimental picture is complicated somewhat by the presence of a tensile wave, reflected from the back of the confining layer.”). Nor does Petitioner dispute that Wang-Dissertation discloses that the tension-wave-1 propagates faster than the compression-wave-1 and eventually overtakes compression-wave-1. See id. at 65–66 (“Being tensile, it propagates faster that the peak compressive stress, and faster than the low stress tail of the main pulse. It eventually overtakes the compressive pulse and linear dissipative mechanisms govern the final thickness of the shock.”). Rather, Petitioner relies on Dr. Wang’s testimony regarding the timing of the waves through the sample and argues that tension-wave-1 does not overtake compression-wave-1 in the fused silica substrate. Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶ 5). Dr. Wang testifies that the peak stress from tension-wave-1 is about 2 ns behind the peak of compression-wave-1 and will not reach the interface before the reflected tensile peak of compression-wave-1 reaches the interface in 0.3 ns. Ex. 1038 ¶ 5. However, as Dr. Gupta persuasively explains, the delay between tension-wave-1 and compression-wave-1 depends on the properties of the confining layer, and Wang-Dissertation acknowledges that these properties are not well controlled. Ex. 2011 ¶ 54; see also Ex. 1005, 65 (“The surface properties of that confining layer are not well controlled.”).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claimed subject matter. Pet. 35–38; Pet. Reply 23–24. In doing so, Petitioner continues to rely on Wang-Dissertation to disclose limitation [1.d] of independent claim 1 and limitation [13.c] of independent claim 13. Pet. 35–38; Pet. Reply 23–24. Petitioner does not put forth any further obviousness rationale in this ground based on Wang-Dissertation for teaching these limitations. For the same reasons discussed in sections II.C.2–3, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Wang-Dissertation teaches or suggests limitations [1.d] and [13.c]. Thus, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Wang-Dissertation renders obvious the subject matter set forth in claims 4, 6, 9, 15, 17, 20, 23, and 24, which depend from independent claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,487,684 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,487,684 - Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 31, 2025 · IPR2024-01434 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the single claimed design was obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“shown that Chen686, alone or in combination with the various secondary references, teaches or suggests a camera having the same overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of the ’435 patent’s claim over Chen686 and the asserted secondary references.” slip op. at 30
- Other 314aNot reached
“These deficiencies in analysis raise the question of whether the Petition adequately identifies the number of actual challenges, and evidence supporting each, with the degree of particularity required of petitions in our forum. The Petition does not explain why so many grounds are necessary under the circumstances or why the Board should impose on Patent Owner the burden of defending against so many challenges. See generally Pet. An inter partes review based on 24 distinct grounds raised against a single claim, supported by analysis lacking in particularity, potentially burdens Patent Owner unduly and makes inefficient use of the Board’s resources. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019),22 56 (“The AIA was ‘designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.’” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 40 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 69 (Post grant reviews were meant to be “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”)). Because we understand enough of the Petition’s analysis to address each group of asserted grounds on the merits, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based solely on this issue.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner submits that a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in industrial design or an equivalent field, or two years of experience designing cameras or camera housings.” Pet. 11 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposal regarding a designer of ordinary skill in the art. See Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In its claim construction section, Petitioner states that the ’435 patent “encompasses a rectangular body with flat faces, a rectangular lens cover extending outward from the front of the body, rectangular buttons/access elements, and rectangles for displays” and “[a]s a whole . . . gives an ordinary designer an overall visual impression of a rectangular design for a camera/camera housing.” Pet. 12 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 25–26). These descriptions are incredibly general and do not provide an adequate understanding of the overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Moreover, we do not find them helpful in our analysis and, therefore, do not adopt them as a claim construction. Patent Owner does not explicitly address claim construction. See” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham - Apple Inc. v. Paul PoniatowskiInstitutedPTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00731 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 based on a reasonable likelihood that Wang, Dua, and Yong render them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and 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 claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 of the ’578 patent on the sole ground of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with one to two years of experience in the field of mobile transactions.” Pet. 8 (citing Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 35–37). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Id. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept this assessment offered by Petitioner, as it is supported by Dr. Bederson’s testimony and appears consistent with the ’578 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“scanner, reader, or camera” that is aimed at a barcode or special code of a product, the price of which is then added to the retail bill. Pet. 10–11 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45–49, 9:5–11). According to Petitioner, the Specification does not elaborate further on the meaning of the term “information concerning prices of goods.” Id. at 11. Petitioner, thus, interprets the term to encompass scenarios in which price information is received directly or indirectly. Id. Petitioner notes that during prosecution of the ’578 patent, the Examiner rejected this limitation over prior art, stating that prior art “sends the scanned bar code information to the server,” which “then preferably returns a description of the item and information,” and “[t]his item description and price information is displayed on the telephone’s display.” Id. at 12 (quoting Ex. 1002, 231). According to Petitioner, this is an example of indirectly receiving information concerning the prices of goods as it comes from a queried server, not from the item itself. Id. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner never disputed, and in fact, made statements supporting that these actions were encompassed by the claim limitation. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 214). We agree with Petitioner that nothing in the claim language or the Specification requires that the claimed optical input receive information concerning the prices of goods directly from the goods themselves. Thus, on this record, we preliminarily construe the term “receiving information concerning the prices of goods” to encompass receiving pricing information from a server.” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In an inter partes review, the burden is on the petitioner to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). With respect to entitlement to any earlier effective filing date, however, a patent owner is not presumed to be entitled to the earlier filing dates of ancestral applications that do not share the same disclosure, such as in a continuation-in-part situation. See PowerOasis, Inc. v. T–Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed.Cir.2008) (stating that once a defendant establishes that a reference is § 102(b) prior art, burden is on patent owner to come forward with evidence proving priority to an earlier filing date).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,270,578 - PTAB · Oct 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00761 · APJ Donald E Daybell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute review. Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence before us, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’684 Patent. The Petition is granted, and inter partes review is instituted. A scheduling order will follow this decision.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“as of the time of the invention of the ’684 Patent “would have had an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering or a related field, and at least five years of experience using laser systems to characterize and test mechanical behavior in materials.” Pet. 5. Patent Owner “generally agrees” with this definition. Prelim. Resp. 26. At this juncture, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. This definition appears to be consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 5 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’684 Patent was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the relevant amendments), the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we find that the above noted evidence comprises “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that [Wang] qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13. Patent Owner raises a number of questions about Petitioner’s showing. First, Patent Owner contends that the Morris Declaration “is not credible or legally sufficient for various reasons,” including a lack of corroborating evidence. Prelim. Resp. 28–30 (citing, inter alia, Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Nonetheless, Ms. Morris’s testimony at least is consistent with the indicators of publication appearing in the front matter of Wang. See Ex. 1005, 1, 3–6 (added page numbers). As such, we find Ms. Morris’s testimony sufficiently reliable to support a reasonable likelihood that Wang would qualify as a prior art printed publication. At trial, the parties can develop the record about whether, and, if so, the extent to which, testimony regarding publication by a non-inventor witness must be corroborated with other evidence.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“f) Enablement of Wang In order for a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, that reference must enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed subject matter. PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“To anticipate a claim, a reference must disclose every element of the challenged claim and enable one skilled in the art to make the anticipating subject matter.”) Enablement of a prior art reference does not require that the prior art reference show that the disclosed subject matter would have utility; that is, that it would work for any particular purpose. Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005). (“[T]his court has continued to recognize that a prior art reference need not demonstrate utility in order to serve as an anticipating reference under section 102.”), In re Schoenwald, 964 F.2d 1122, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[I]t is beyond argument that no utility need be disclosed for a reference to be anticipatory.”) All that matters is whether the skilled person could have made the claimed subject matter, without undue experimentation. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Enablement of prior art requires that the reference teach a skilled artisan to make or carry out what it discloses in relation to the claimed invention.”) (emphasis added). Even references that disclose inoperative devices are still prior art for all that they teach. Id. (citing Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Therefore, questions of whether the prior art may teach away from making the claimed subject matter are not relevant to anticipation. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Lab’ys, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Thus, the question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.”)” slip op. at 23
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,487,684 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00661 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review for claims 1 and 2 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors weighed against review because of the advanced, overlapping ITC investigation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The Fintiv factors “relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6. A stay of parallel litigation pending resolution of a Board proceeding “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Id. That the E.D.N.Y. case was stayed “at its earliest stage,” however, does not “allay[] concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts” in view of the 1220 investigation. Additionally, the E.D.N.Y. case was stayed “pending completion” of the 1220 investigation, not because of any Board proceeding. Ex. 3002, 1. With dates set in the 1220 investigation for the ALJ’s initial determination and the ITC’s final determination, a stay seems highly unlikely, especially with the initial determination date about a week away. Hence, factor (1) weighs against institution. See Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2020-00771, Paper 14 at 16–17 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2020).” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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) (2018). But we have discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” threshold standard for instituting trial. See, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“essentially the same argument about the ’557 patent’s effective filing date for its challenge based on Nakamura-959 and Nakamura-949 as for its invalidity defense based on insufficient written-description support for claim 1. See Pet. 7, 12–21, 37; Ex. 2004, 29–33; Ex. 2005, 245–48; Ex. 2014, 64–65, 70. As we understand the arguments, resolving the ’557 patent’s effective filing date does not require interpreting any part of § 1.57. See Pet. 12–21; Prelim. Resp. 29–31. Instead, the issue turns on whether the ’154 application supports claim 1 according to § 112’s first paragraph. See Pet. 12–21; Prelim. Resp. 29–31. Also, the challenges based on Tanda present a similar issue whether the ’447 provisional supports claim 1 according to § 112’s first paragraph. See Pet. 12–21, 61; Prelim. Resp. 29–31, 36–37. “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Under the circumstances here, the ITC can apply the test for sufficiency of disclosure to the ’154 application and the ’447 provisional just as well as the Board.” slip op. at 27
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,658,557 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00813 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 8–12, and 18–20 are unpatentable: Okamoto anticipates some claims, and the asserted Okamoto- and Miyahara-based combinations render the claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties (Institution Dec. 7–8) to address any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing, neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As detailed below, we determine that Patent Owner has not shown that the term “lead frame,” as recited by the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree that Okamoto shows the claimed lead frame, as a whole, providing support to the LED chip as required by claims 1 and 13. As shown in Okamoto’s Figure 1, reproduced above, “lead frame 8 is attached to the wiring pattern 6 drawn around an end of the glass substrate 2 with a solder material 9.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 29. According to Patent Owner, Okamoto’s transparent plate “supports the lead frame,” (PO Resp. 10) and as agreed upon by the parties, the claimed lead frame includes the transparent plate. Okamoto also discloses that the LED chip is on transparent glass substrate 2. Id. ¶ 27 (stating that LED elements “are disposed in a row on a front face of a light-transmissive glass substrate 2.”). Based on this disclosure, we find Okamoto teaches or suggests a lead frame that includes a transparent plate supporting an LED chip.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In sum, on the complete record, we find that the combination of Okamoto and Shimizu teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 11, and we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine Okamoto and Shimizu.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 9,859,464 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,859,464 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2020-00780 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 13, 14, 18–20, 22, and 26 are unpatentable based on anticipation by Okamoto or Miyahara and obviousness over the asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“construction requiring at least one lead to provide structural support to the LED chip. First, Patent Owner contends that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that the leads must form “the structural frame supporting the LED chip.” Sur-Reply 4. According to Patent Owner, “[o]n its face, the meaning is clear” that “‘lead frame’ is a frame formed by leads.” Id. We do not find this conclusory statement helpful in determining whether the leads in a lead frame are required to provide structural support to the LED chip. Patent Owner does not identify any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that any leads provide direct or indirect support to the LED chip. In fact, Patent Owner refers to several dictionary definitions of the term “lead frame,” none of which makes any reference to support. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1023, 4 (“Lead Frame. The metallic portion of a component package that is used to interconnect with semiconductor die by wire bonding and to provide output terminal leads.”); Ex. 1024, 4 (“lead frame— . . . 2. The metal part of a solid-state device package that achieves electrical connection between the die and other parts of the system of which the IC is a component. . . .); Ex. 1026, 3 (“lead frame the metallic portion of the device package that makes electrical connections from the die to other circuitry.”).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“The fundamental error in Petitioner’s argument on this point, however, is that the claims at issue in this proceeding do not require “a lead frame including a transparent plate,” but instead “a lead frame having a transparent plate therein.” Petitioner must do more than show that Okamoto discloses that “the transparent plate is part of the lead frame,” as argued in the Petition. And, as we pointed out in our Institution Decision, Petitioner concedes that “Okamoto’s lead frame sits on its transparent plate, rather than the transparent plate being in the lead frame.” Institution Dec. 17 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 34, 36). During the trial, Petitioner did not engage with this issue or provide any reason for us to diverge from our prior conclusion that, because “the plain language of the claims requires that the lead frame have a transparent plate ‘therein’ . . . [b]y Petitioner’s own admission . . . Okamoto does not anticipate.” Id. In other words, because Petitioner concedes that Okamoto’s transparent plate is not in its lead frame, it cannot meet the requirement of claims 1 and 14 that the lead frame have a transparent plate therein. For this reason, we maintain our prior determination that Okamoto does not disclose a lead frame having a transparent plate therein, and as a result, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 14 are anticipated.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner also asserts that “Petitioner fails to explain how its proposed modification of wrapping the wiring pattern 6 around the ends of the substrate results in a lower-profile.” PO Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner, “Okamoto already provides the alleged lower-profile benefits of Shimizu, as seen by comparing figure 2 of each reference.” Id. at 18. But Dr. Dupuis supports Petitioner’s contention by stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a “chip-type” package instead of a “lead-type” package in applications where a lower profile is needed. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–134 (citing Ex. 1017, 8:31–67; Ex. 1016, Fig. 1, 33–35; Ex. 1022, Figs. 1–3, 6–8, 13, ¶¶ 2–14). Also, Okamoto states that Figure 2 is “a planar view of the light source device of” Figure 1. Ex. 1008 ¶ 43. And Figure 1 of Okamoto, reproduced above, clearly shows protruding lead frame 8. Id. at Fig. 1, ¶ 29. Figure 2 of Okamoto, however, does not show lead frame 8. See id. at Fig. 2. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Figure 2 of Okamoto shows a package with a lower profile. Instead, the record supports Petitioner’s position that the modified device created using the disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu has a lower profile (i.e., leads wrapped around substrate 2 as opposed to protruding as shown by Okamoto Figures 1 and 8). See Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–142. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner ignores Dr. Schubert’s explanation that Shimizu was directed towards general illumination, while Okamoto is directed towards a signaling light source” so a person of ordinary skill would not combine the two references. Sur-Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1044, 93:15–96:13). Because we do not see this argument in Patent Owner’s Response, nor do we see anything in Dr. Schubert’s declaration to support such an argument, we do not agree that Petitioner improperly failed to respond to an argument. See PO Resp. 12–21; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 112–120. Moreover, we find that both Shimizu and Okamoto disclose methods of creating white light using an LED and, therefore, the evidence supports a finding that both references are relevant to a consideration of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference must either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.”). In sum, on the complete record, we find that the combination of Okamoto and Shimizu teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 14, and we find that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine Okamoto and Shimizu.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Upon further review, and in light of the arguments in Petitioner’s Reply (Reply 21–24), we conclude that our preliminary determination in the Institution Decision was in error, to the extent that we agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments that claims 13 and 26 require “all layers” of the LED to be transparent. The claims recite “a plurality of III-nitride layers, including an active region that emits light, wherein all of the layers except for the active region are transparent.” Ex. 1001, 21:46–52. The second half of this phrase, which contains the transparency requirement, recites “the layers,” meaning that it relies on an earlier recitation in the claim for antecedent basis of “layers.” This basis is found in the recitation of “a plurality of III-nitride layers.” In other words, the proper interpretation of “all of the layers” in claims 13 and 26 is that the term refers back to the III-nitride layers, not all of the layers of the LED as a whole (such as, for example, a mirror). And the parties agree that the mirror of a conventional LED is not a III-nitride layer. Tr. 18:15–18; 45:4–13. As a result, our preliminary determination that the non-transparent mirror of the APA LEDs prevented a finding of obviousness was incorrect. We agree with Petitioner that the ’916 patent admits that LEDs having transparent III-nitride layers were conventional in the art, and that these are “all of the layers except for the active region” as required in claims 13 and 26. Notably, during the trial Patent Owner did not attempt to defend against Petitioner’s ground for the same reason it raised in the Preliminary Response; instead, Patent Owner now argues that because of the mirror on conventional LEDs, these devices would not meet the claim limitation that “light is extracted effectively through all the layers.” PO Resp. 21. But this reflects a misunderstanding of Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability, which does not rely on the APA for this limitation. Petitioner’s ground is based on the argument that, while Okamoto discloses an LED without a mirror, it does not “specifically describe the layers of its blue LEDs, other than to say that it is a GaN-based LED.” Pet. 61. Petitioner turns to the APA for this missing information regarding the layers that were conventionally used in LEDs; but notably, the Petition does not rely on the APA’s mirror. Id. All Petitioner concludes from the APA is that a person of skill in the art “would reasonably expect the GaN-based LEDs of Okamoto to include multiple layers, which layers would at least include an active layer sandwiched between a p-side layer and an n-side layer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 203– 205; Ex. 1001, 10:20–31). Patent Owner’s argument that the application of the APA’s layers to Okamoto would have brought along the mirror of the APA LED’s is therefore misguided and unpersuasive. In sum, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to conventional LEDs, such as those admitted to be prior art in the ’916 patent, when determining the layers of Okamoto’s LED. And according to the ’916 patent, these conventional III-nitride layers would have been understood to be transparent to an emission wavelength. As a result, we conclude that claims 13 and 26 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu in light of the APA.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 10,217,916 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,217,916 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00695 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8–10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20–22, and 24 are unpatentable, primarily as obvious over the asserted combinations including Okamoto, Shimizu, and Miyahara.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“been knowledgeable regarding conventional designs and fabrication techniques pertaining to LEDs, including LED package designs, and would have had at least 2 years of experience in LED design and fabrication as well as at least a master’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., chemical engineering, materials engineering, or electrical engineering), or alternatively would have an equivalent combination of advanced education and practical experience.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner contends that the person of ordinary skill “would have had at least a B.S. degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and three years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” Prelim. Resp. 2; Ex. 2006 ¶ 25. Patent Owner adds that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience (for example, an M.S. in any of the above fields and two years of practical experience would qualify one as a [person of ordinary skill in the art] (POSITA).” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 67); Ex. 2006 ¶ 25. Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties to explain any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing (see Institution Dec. 8), neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As detailed below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term “lead frame,” as recited in the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“would have understood that “white light can be created by combining the three primary colors of light” (PO Resp. 11), we disagree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use one of the three disclosed LEDs (the blue LED) with phosphor to create white light as disclosed by Shimizu. Ex. 1017, 4:50–67. We find, based on Petitioner’s evidence, that “it was common well before the priority date of the ’529 patent to use appropriate phosphors in combination with blue LEDs to create white light.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1007, 246, 248; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–114, 117; Ex. 1006); Ex. 1044, 100:23–103:10 (Dr. Schubert acknowledging that using Shimizu’s phosphor technique was well known and commonly used to create white light at the relevant time).” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not reached
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions, the testimonial evidence, and the disclosure of Miyahara, and determine that the record provides substantial evidence supporting Petitioner’s assertions of obviousness of claims 1 and 13 over Miyahara. Because we agree with Petitioner that claims 1 and 13 would have been obvious over Miyahara, we do not address whether the claims are anticipated by Miyahara.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 9,240,529 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,240,529 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00579 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 56 are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties to address any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing (see Institution Dec. 8), neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As detailed below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term “lead frame,” as recited in the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“between Basin’s device and that of the ’789 patent.14 Because, as above, we see no evidence that the only difference between those two devices is whether or not the leads provide support to the LED chip, we do not find Dr. Schubert’s conclusion persuasive. We, therefore, agree with Petitioner that Basin does not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Patent Owner also relies on testimony from Dr. Schubert (PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 63–69, 75–86)) stating that “[t]he leads either directly support the LED chip (in the absence of a transparent plate) or indirectly support the LED chip through the transparent plate (in the presence of a transparent plate).” Ex. 2006 ¶ 86. However, Dr. Schubert does not cite to any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, supporting this statement. Id. In fact, earlier in the same section of his testimony, Dr. Schubert states that (1) “[a] lead frame in the context of LEDs is understood by those of skill in the art as a support structure for an LED chip that comprises at least two conductive leads, an anode lead and cathode lead that are structurally stable and do not require support from another component” (Ex. 2006 ¶ 63); (2) “[t]he term ‘lead frame’ is a very commonly used term in the field of LEDs” that “refers to a frame (support structure) for LEDs that includes leads (electrodes) for making electrical connections between an LED and other structures (e.g., an LED driver or power supply)” (id. ¶ 76); and (3) “[i]n the context of the 14 Dr. Schubert also refers to the devices of Shimizu and Ishizaka, which are similar to the device in Basin in that they allegedly use chip-on-board packaging instead of a lead frame. Id. at 69 (citing Ex. 1017, 8:51–54; Ex. 1016 ¶ 33). However, as with Basin, Dr. Schubert does not address the other differences between the devices of Shimizu and Ishizaka or explain why support provided by leads is the relevant factor distinguishing a lead frame package from a chip-on-board package. Id. claims at issue and in light of the specification, the ’789 Patent (and related patents) teach that the transparent plate, with the leads is involved in the support of the LED chip” (id. ¶ 84). However, all of these statements support a finding that the lead frame supports the LED chip, but they do not require that any leads support the LED chip. Dr. Schubert does not explain the logical step between the requirement of the lead frame providing support and the leads of the lead frame providing support except to state that “[i]n the context of the claims at issue and in light of the specification, the ’789 (and related patents) teach that the transparent plate, with the leads, is involved in the support of the LED chip” and “[t]herefore, in my opinion a POSITA reading the ’789 patent would understand that the lead frame recited in the claims include[s] a transparent plate, where both the transparent plate and conductive leads provide [structural] support to the LED.” Id. ¶¶ 84–85. Because this conclusion is not supported by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, we are not persuaded that Dr. Schubert’s testimony provides significant support to Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 56 of the ‘789 patent are unpatentable. Claims Claims Not 35 Shown Shown Claim(s) U.S.C. § Reference(s) Unpatentable Unpatentable 1, 9, 29, 37 102(b) Nishida 1, 9, 29, 37” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 7,781,789 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,781,789 - Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 1, 2018 · IPR2017-02080 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google's rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 3–23 because the petition did not show Zydney disclosed the claimed object field.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We have considered Petitioner’s contentions but are not persuaded of any error in our Decision. Our Decision was premised not on a rejection of Petitioner’s proposed formulation of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “object field” limitation recited in claim 3, but instead on Petitioner’s failure to persuade us that Zydney’s “body” maps to the recited object field. A prior art reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Moreover, “[a]nticipation requires that a single reference ‘describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.’” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “For this reason, it has long been understood that ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim.” Id. But the disclosure of Zydney relied upon by Petitioner for the object field limitation of claim 3 is, at best, ambiguous.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In our Decision, we found that there was insufficient evidence on the record to support Petitioner’s contention that Zydney’s disclosure of a message “body” expressly discloses the recited object field and, further, that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that the claimed object field is inherently anticipated by Zydney. Dec. 17. We explained, in particular, that “[a]lthough Zydney discloses that its voice container includes ‘voice data,’ . . . Petitioner has not shown that voice data necessarily would be included in an ‘object field.’” Id. We, accordingly, determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that the object field limitation of claim 3 is disclosed by Zydney.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“record to support Petitioner’s contention that Zydney’s disclosure of a message “body” expressly discloses the recited object field and, further, that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that the claimed object field is inherently anticipated by Zydney. Dec. 17. We explained, in particular, that “[a]lthough Zydney discloses that its voice container includes ‘voice data,’ . . . Petitioner has not shown that voice data necessarily would be included in an ‘object field.’” Id. We, accordingly, determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that the object field limitation of claim 3 is disclosed by Zydney.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“recites, in part, “a messaging system communicating with a plurality of instant voice message client systems . . . wherein the messaging system receives an instant voice message from one of the plurality of instant voice message client systems, and wherein the instant voice message includes an object field including a digitized audio file.” Ex. 1001, 24:15–27 (emphasis added). Petitioner alleges that claims 3–8, 11, 13, and 18–21 are anticipated by Zydney1 and that claims 3–23 also are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Zydney and certain other references (Pet. 6, 11–68), relying in each of the asserted grounds on Zydney as teaching the recited “object field including a digitized audio field” (id. at 17–19, 38).” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,724,622
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.