- NXP USA, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 19, 2024 · IPR2024-01068 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 8, 9, 11–23, 26, 27, and 29–36 on all petitioned grounds and granted NXP's conditional motion to join the TI IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, we institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claims of the ’528 patent. We also grant Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to IPR2024-00936.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“As set forth in the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (dated June 21, 2022), at 7, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf, the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Petitioner’s stipulation (Ex. 1041) satisfies the language from the Director’s Memorandum quoted above. Additionally, we do not see an issue with ambiguity in Petitioner’s stipulation. Specifically, following joinder, this IPR (i.e., IPR2024-01068), which is based on the Petition at issue here (i.e., the Petition filed by NXP), will still be pending even though Petitioner will be joined to IPR2024-00936. Thus, the “IPR from this [P]etition” will be “pending,” which satisfies the language of Petitioner’s stipulation and precludes the actions stated therein. Further, to the extent there was any potential ambiguity, that ambiguity is resolved by Petitioner’s representations in e-mail correspondence (Exhibit 3001), as noted above. Therefore, we need not analyze each Fintiv factor to reach the determination that we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution in view of the parallel litigation.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“Compare Pet. with TI IPR, Paper 2 (petition); see also Motion 2 (stating that “NXP’s petition challenges the same claims on the same grounds, relies on the same prior art, and includes the exact same substantive arguments as the TI IPR”). Patent Owner raises the same arguments that it presented in the TI IPR. Regarding the first ground, Patent Owner asserts that (1) Petitioner has not shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Tayloe, TI Datasheet, and Macnally (Prelim. Resp. 5– 9) and (2) Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient reasonable expectation of success in combining Macnally and Tayloe (id. at 9–12). Additionally, Patent Owner contends we should exercise our discretion to deny institution” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“35 U.S.C. § 315(c). We have explained that a motion for joinder should: (1) set forth reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified. Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013).” slip op. at 10
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,118,528 - PTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Irwin renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than the patents at issue in PGR2020-00084 and IPR2023- 01235. Challenging claims of different patents significantly distinguishes the facts here from those in General Plastic, and we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to extend General Plastic in this regard. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Weighing the Graham Factors “Once all relevant facts are found, the ultimate legal determination [of obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.” Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the record presently before us, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that Irwin would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–9 and 11–24 of the ’451 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,488,451 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–6 on all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Szrek and did not reach the Llach–Szrek ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than at issue in IPR2020-00084. Second, although the parties may have gained insight as to how the Board would handle challenges based on the same references asserted in the earlier proceeding, that insight (to the extent it gives an advantage) applies to both parties. Third, the first proceeding was a post-grant review that had a specific timing requirement (see 35 U.S.C. § 321(c)), in contrast to the present proceeding in which the filing of the Petition did not have the same or similar time constraint.6 In these circumstances, we find it appropriate to give less weight to factors based on the mere passage of time such as whether Petitioner knew of the prior art at the time of filing the petition in PGR2020- 00084 (clearly Petitioner did because two of the same references are asserted here) and whether Petitioner had received Patent Owner’s preliminary response from PGR2020-00084 at the time of filing the instant Petition. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we do not dive headfirst into these matters that are better addressed by the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).7 Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). Petitioner contends that we should follow the Board’s decision in PGR2020-00084 and construe “transaction processor” and “data package” in accordance with each term’s plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; see id. at 13–19. Patent Owner does not take a position as to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. In PGR2020-00084, the Board construed “transaction processor”8 in accordance with its plain meaning as “a processor . . . that processes transactions between two devices” and specifically “decline[d] to limit processors . . . to ‘third party’ processors . . . because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty.” Ex. 1008, 22. And, as Petitioner indicates, the Board determined that “data package” also is understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 22–24; see id. at 24 n.10. At this stage of the proceeding 8 In that proceeding, the Board also construed “transaction processor system.” Ex. 1008, 13–22. and on the present record, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,865,135 - Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00279 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted review of claims 1–4 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Kovatch and Burrows.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For purposes of this Decision, we thus make a preliminary determination that collateral estoppel precludes Patent Owner from relitigating the issue of whether Kovatch teaches a ranking associated with web site addresses indicating the order in which to access a plurality of preselected web sites. In challenging independent claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kovatch and Burrows, the Petition presents an element-by-element analysis to support its position. Pet. 14–32. That analysis relies on Kovatch’s disclosure of the HeyAnita system for accessing web sites to retrieve information a user requested, and relies on Burrows for disclosure of a system for ranking database records that are “presented to the users in a rank order where the pages having a higher rank are presented first.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1006, 27:28–32, 32:14–47). Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to apply Burrows’s numbered ranking and polling approach to Kovatch’s destination tree to better identify and present the records of the most interest to the user.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:56– 58). In particular, because Burrows explains that “there needs to be a way to rank order the list in a meaningful manner,” Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Burrows’s numbered ranking to Kovatch’s destination tree web pages to provide those of interest first.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 115); Ex. 1006, 27:28–29. Petitioner’s element-by-element analysis explains Petitioner’s position as to how each limitation of independent claims 1 and 2 is met within such a combination. Id. at 14–32. Although Patent Owner makes a number of arguments in its Preliminary Response why the combination does not meet certain limitations, those arguments are precluded by our preliminary determination that collateral estoppel applies. See Prelim. Resp. 29–44.7 We have thus re-evaluated the parties’ arguments in light of the findings made in the 846 IPR, and affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kovatch and Burrows. We accordingly grant Petitioner’s Rehearing Request and institute an inter partes review of all claims on all grounds asserted in the Petition.8 See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel must show: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against who collateral estoppel is being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Google, 54 F.4th at 1381. Each of these requirements appears to be met with respect to the issue of whether Kovatch discloses rankings associated with the order in which web site addresses are accessed. First, the claim limitations at issue in the two proceedings are sufficiently similar to raise the issue of collateral estoppel. See Ohio Willow Wood, 735 F.3d at 1342 (“If the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity, collateral estoppel applies. . . . Thus, the mere use of different words in these portions of the claims does not create a new issue of invalidity.”). For example, claim 1 of the ’705 patent recites “a rank number assigned to each one of said web sites and stored in said database” and “access[ing] one of said web sites having the highest said rank number,” while claim 10 of the ’431 patent recites “a ranking associated with each said web site address, said ranking indicating the order in which the plurality of pre-selected web sites are accessed.” Ex. 1001, 19:58–59, 19:65–66; 846 IPR, Ex. 1001, 21:9–11.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“determination that collateral estoppel precludes Patent Owner from relitigating the issue of whether Kovatch teaches a ranking associated with web site addresses indicating the order in which to access a plurality of preselected web sites. In challenging independent claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kovatch and Burrows, the Petition presents an element-by-element analysis to support its position. Pet. 14–32. That analysis relies on Kovatch’s disclosure of the HeyAnita system for accessing web sites to retrieve information a user requested, and relies on Burrows for disclosure of a system for ranking database records that are “presented to the users in a rank order where the pages having a higher rank are presented first.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1006, 27:28–32, 32:14–47). Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to apply Burrows’s numbered ranking and polling approach to Kovatch’s destination tree to better identify and present the records of the most interest to the user.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:56– 58). In particular, because Burrows explains that “there needs to be a way to rank order the list in a meaningful manner,” Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Burrows’s numbered ranking to Kovatch’s destination tree web pages to provide those of interest first.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 115); Ex. 1006, 27:28–29.” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,721,705 - Snap Inc. v. You Map Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2023 · IPR2022-00568 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Feldman and Jackson, or Feldman, Jackson, and Rush; the contingent motion to amend is granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus two years’ work or research experience with location-based content delivery and/or visualization.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19– experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Shamos, testifies that he “generally agree[s]” with Petitioner’s proposed articulation, and provides substantially the same expression of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Shamos Decl. ¶¶ 30–31. In this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Although Patent Owner appears to argue that applying the preference factors to a general score does not encompass weighting the general score’s components (see, e.g., id. at 10–12; Sur-reply 13–16), this is not reflected in Patent Owner’s proposed construction (PO Resp. 12). Patent Owner’s construction provides no limitation on how the preference factors are applied to a general score. See id. To the extent Patent Owner argues that the phrase “applied to,” as recited in the claim, excludes such component-based weighting, we disagree. Rather, the record better aligns with Petitioner’s argument that “applied to” involves a linear combination of values, which could be the values of the general score’s components. See Pet. 30–31. Petitioner’s position is supported by the plain language of the claim, the ’727 patent’s discussion of weighted aggregation, and Mr. William’s testimony—all of which indicate that weighting the component scores is encompassed by claim 1. As for the plain language, the claim does not define how the factors are “applied to” the general score. Rather, the claim only recites that they are. In the context of the claim, the preference factors are applied to the general score. Patent Owner does not dispute this. PO Resp. 12. Claim 1 further recites that the customized score is based on the application of the preference factors to the general score. Ex. 1001, 23:14–27. We note that the generate the combined ranking, which is then used for the recited selection. Beyond that, the claim does not specify how the two rankings are used or how the combined ranking must be generated. Thus, under the claim’s plain language, the customized score can be used to rank the posts and is based on the general score. Id.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“adequately supported. We find that Mr. William’s declaration is adequately supported. This is not case where an expert “does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Rather, Mr. Williams adequately supports his testimony about the second preference factor with reasoning based on Jackson’s teachings about how the social-network distance is used to weight the global score. See, e.g., Williams Decl. ¶ 133 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 4A, 16:23–25, 58–60). weighting criteria can be used together. Id. ¶¶ 147–149 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–44:22, 5:53–58, 9:54–67, 13:17–22, 17:47–67). Mr. Williams’s analysis relies on Jackson’s discussion of using multiple factors to score a post. Ex. 1006, 17:47–55, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147; see also Pet. 42–43; Reply 9. Mr. Williams also cites Jackson’s discussion of how social-network distance and geographic distance can be used together. Williams Decl. ¶ 147 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–4:22). We agree with Petitioner that Jackson adequately supports this part of Mr. Williams’s analysis. Reply 7–9. Specifically, Jackson discloses that a determination may use social-network distance to “modify the criteria” that it uses to provide posts to users. Ex. 1006, 3:66–4:1, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Jackson further explains how geographic distance can be used in addition to other criteria: “Transmitting the post to the second computing device may be dependent upon determining that the criteria is met and determining that the posting location is within the threshold distance.” Id. at 4:19–22 (emphasis added), cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. This is consistent with Jackson’s teaching that a post may be recommended based on several factors and for several reasons. Id. at 17:47–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Also, Jackson explains how the global score, which Petitioner mapped to the recited “general score,” is used to generate a post’s score: “[A] particular post’s global score . . . is multiplied by, divided by, or summed with a distance between” a user and the post’s author. Id. at 9:54–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 148. Jackson weights a post’s global score against a position of the posts author in a social graph. Id. at 9:25–53. Mr. Williams testifies that it is obvious and conventional to generate the modified scores embodiment. Williams Decl. ¶ 144. This is supported by Jackson. In another example cited by Petitioner, Jackson multiplies a post’s global score by a geographic distance to generate a personal score. Id. at 21:60–22:5, cited in Pet. 37, 39, 43. Thus, Petitioner has shown Jackson teaches or suggests applying two different sets of preference factors to a post’s global score. Pet. 41 (citing Williams Decl. ¶ 144). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that neither Petitioner nor” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that Jackson adequately supports this part of Mr. Williams’s analysis. Reply 7–9. Specifically, Jackson discloses that a determination may use social-network distance to “modify the criteria” that it uses to provide posts to users. Ex. 1006, 3:66–4:1, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Jackson further explains how geographic distance can be used in addition to other criteria: “Transmitting the post to the second computing device may be dependent upon determining that the criteria is met and determining that the posting location is within the threshold distance.” Id. at 4:19–22 (emphasis added), cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. This is consistent with Jackson’s teaching that a post may be recommended based on several factors and for several reasons. Id. at 17:47–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Also, Jackson explains how the global score, which Petitioner mapped to the recited “general score,” is used to generate a post’s score: “[A] particular post’s global score . . . is multiplied by, divided by, or summed with a distance between” a user and the post’s author. Id. at 9:54–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 148. Jackson weights a post’s global score against a position of the posts author in a social graph. Id. at 9:25–53. Mr. Williams testifies that it is obvious and conventional to generate the modified scores embodiment. Williams Decl. ¶ 144. This is supported by Jackson. In another example cited by Petitioner, Jackson multiplies a post’s global score by a geographic distance to generate a personal score. Id. at 21:60–22:5, cited in Pet. 37, 39, 43. Thus, Petitioner has shown Jackson teaches or suggests applying two different sets of preference factors to a post’s global score. Pet. 41 (citing Williams Decl. ¶ 144).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,616,727 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,616,727 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2023 · IPR2022-01335 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19, 20, and 37–52 based on the §103 combination of Hardin and Salmre, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the Petition, the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge of at least one claim of the ’447 patent as unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review of all Challenged Claims of the ’447 patent on the ground stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“(1) Petitioner asserts that substantially the same two claim limitations lack written description support in the ’094 application and U.S. Patent Application No. 13/856,392 (“the ’392 application”) (compare Pet. 23–29, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 (petition) at 23–28); (2) Petitioner asserts that because these limitations lack written description support in the ’094 and ’392 applications, the Challenged Claims are not entitled to the priority date of either of these applications and, therefore, Hardin ’665 (the pre-issuance publication of the ’094 application) is available as prior art to the Challenged Claims (compare Pet. 1, 2, 28–29, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 1, 2, 28–29);” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“(3) Petitioner asserts that the same combination of references— Hardin ’665 and Salmre—would have rendered the subject matter of the claims challenged in each petition obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (compare Pet. 29–64, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 29–66); (4) Petitioner asserts the same reasons with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success (compare Pet. 65–71, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 66–71);” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (compare Prelim. Resp. 61–66, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 9 at 61–66);” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,984,447 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2023 · IPR2022-01329 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–28, 33, and 34, finding a reasonable likelihood that Hardin ’665 and Salmre render them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has established a reasonable 1 Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply is limited to the issue of discretionary denial pursuant to Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), and, particularly, the effect of Samsung’s stipulation in related litigation, in accordance with Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“(1) Petitioner asserts that substantially the same two claim limitations lack written description support in the ’094 application and U.S. Patent Application No. 13/856,392 (“the ’392 application”) (compare Pet. 23–27, with IPR2022-01327, Paper 4 (petition) at 23–27); (2) Petitioner asserts that because these limitations lack written description support in the ’094 and ’392 applications, the Challenged Claims are not entitled to the priority date of either of these applications and, therefore, Hardin ’665 (the pre-issuance publication of the ’094 application) is available as prior art to the Challenged Claims (compare Pet. 1, 2, 27–28, with IPR2022-01327, Paper 4 at 1, 2, 27–28);” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“(3) Petitioner asserts that the same combination of references— Hardin ’665 and Salmre—would have rendered the subject matter of the claims challenged in each petition obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (compare Pet. 28–62, with IPR2022-01327, Paper 4 at 28–63); (4) Petitioner asserts the same reasons with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success (compare Pet. 62–68, with IPR2022-01327, Paper 4 at 63–69);” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“(6) Patent Owner relies on the same argument and evidence to assert that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (compare Prelim. Resp. 61–66, with IPR2022-01327, Paper 9 at 61–66);” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,049,387 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2023 · IPR2022-01330 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 based on the obviousness ground using Hardin ’665 and Salmre.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’418 patent, namely, claims 1–10, based on the sole ground presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“lack written description support in U.S. Application No. 12/434,094 (“the ’094 application”) and U.S. Patent Application No. 13/856,392 (“the ’392 application”) (compare Pet. 22–26, with IPR2022-01331, Paper 4 at 22–26 (petition)); (2) Petitioner asserts that because these limitations lack written description support in the ’094 and ’392 applications, the challenged claims are not entitled to the priority date of either of these applications, and, therefore, Hardin ’665 (the pre-issuance publication of the ’094 application) is available as prior art to the challenged claims (compare Pet. 1, 2, 26–27, with IPR2022-01331, Paper 4 at 1, 2, 26–27);” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“(3) Petitioner asserts that the same combination of references— Hardin ’665 and Salmre—would have rendered the subject matter of the claims challenged in each petition obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (compare Pet. 27–70, with IPR2022-01331, Paper 4 at 27–69); (4) Petitioner asserts the same reasons with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success (compare Pet. 64–70, with IPR2022-01331, Paper 4 at 64–69);” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (compare Prelim. Resp. 61–66, with IPR2022-01331, Paper 10 at 61–66);” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,779,418 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00245 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe; claims 2 and 3 are also unpatentable as obvious over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above. slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00990 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable under §103: claims 2–3 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet, and claims 2–4 over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s option (a) is substantially the same as Petitioners’ proposal—both require a bachelor’s degree in the same or a related subject and two additional years of related work experience. Patent Owner’s option (b) adds an additional option based on work experience in lieu of a formal degree. Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The terms storage module and storage capacitance, as used herein, are distinguishable from the terms holding module and holding capacitance, respectively. Holding modules and holding capacitances, as used above, identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of “holding” a voltage value. Storage modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal. Ex. 2029, 66:59–67 (emphases added); see Ex. 2016, 39–40 (discussing Patent Owner’s prior arguments to construe “storage module” in IPR2014- 00948). When defining certain terms in a section titled “General Terminology,” the ’551 patent repeatedly uses the phrase “when used herein” in combination with the phrase “refer(s) to.” See, e.g., Ex. 2029, 13:56–15:27 (mentioning a term followed by “when used herein,” followed by “refers to,” followed by a definition). For example, the ’551 patent states, “[t]he term digital signal, when used herein, refers to a signal that changes between discrete states, as contrasted to a signal that is continuous.” Id. at 15:7–9. As shown, the ’551 patent defines “digital signal” by stating “when used herein” followed by “refers to.” And, the same sentence also provides a comparison between “digital signal” and a signal that is continuous. Even though the passage describing “storage module” is not listed under the “General Terminology” section of the ’551 patent, the passage provides the same indications that the patentees clearly and unambiguously intended to define the term “storage module” by stating “as used herein” and “refer to”—hallmarks that the patentees were providing a lexicographic definition of the term. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An applicant’s use of the phrase ‘refers to’ generally indicates an intention to define a term.”) (citing In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 731 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Additionally, as with the term “digital signal,” the above-passage provides a comparison between “storage module” and “holding module” and uses the definitions of the terms to compare and contrast them. “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Additional Terms Petitioners propose that we construe the following three terms: “frequency down-conversion module,” “subtractor module,” and “under-samples.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner responds to Petitioners’ constructions for “frequency down-conversion module” and “subtractor module.” PO Resp. 39–41. On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444
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.