- Ironsource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · PGR2022-00053 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable under collateral estoppel; revised substitute claims 23–37 are allowed because Petitioner did not prove them unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided 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 (quoting In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Collateral estoppel may also operate to bar re-litigation of common issues in actions involving different but related patents. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 252 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Amgen, Inc. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 98 F.3d 1328, 1329–32 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We are persuaded that each of the four Google requirements is satisfied and, accordingly, agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’256 patent are unpatentable in light of our Final Written Decision in PGR2021-00096.” slip op. at 13
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). But “failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims” is what Petitioner’s analysis of the claim limitations appears to do. Petitioner’s argument that “the focus of the claims” is captured by a single claim element (f3) not only ignores that that limitation recites performing two specific software tasks simultaneously—which we are not persuaded is an abstract idea—but also asks us to disregard multiple technical aspects recited in the claims, such as identifying a link, determining whether an installation client is available on the device, invoking the installation client, and redirecting to the device an app store. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:12–41; Revised MTA 24–25. That is, under Step 2A of the Guidance, we are neither persuaded that limitation f3, which Petitioner points us to, recites an abstract idea (Prong 1), nor that the other limitations recited in the independent claims fail to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2). Petitioner characterizes the claims as directed to multitasking, which Petitioner describes as an example applied to improve a user experience, i.e., as related to organizing human activity. Pet. 29. Although the Guidance recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity, including certain activity between a person and a computer, as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we are not persuaded that the claims here fall within the scope of such activity. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships as organizing human activity). The claimed invention may result in multitasking on the device, but the background instead of directing the user to an app store, thereby maintaining user experience with the foreground application, and do not recite an abstract idea. And although that process does result in improving user experience, the claims recite more than that mere result; they recite specific steps—invoking, without exiting the foreground software application, the installation client for downloading and installing applications on the device to run in the background—that accomplish the desired result. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding a method that employs a new kind of file in a computer security system directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security writ large). Petitioner thus fails to establish sufficiently that the claims are directed patent ineligible subject matter under Step 2A of the Guidance.” slip op. at 52
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“When the application package 172 has been received by the client system 130, the App Manager 180 may extract or retrieve a set of requested permissions 174 from the application package 172, and present a request to the user for asking for approval to perform operations corresponding to the requested permissions, e.g., opening files, accessing contact information, accessing a camera on the client device 130, and so on. . . . In particular embodiments, when the requested permissions 174 have been requested, and a response specifying a set of accepted permissions 176 has been received from the user, the set of accepted permissions 176 may be compared to the set of requested permissions 174. If the sets are the same, then the installation process may continue, and the App Manager 180 may invoke an installer 182 to install the application package 172. Ex. 1003, 8:67–9:22 (emphasis added). That is, the set of permissions to be checked are obtained by the App Manager once the download of the application package to be installed is initiated. See id. at 8:59–61 (“when the download is initiated by a request sent from the client system 130 to the server 162, the server 162 may send the requested object, e.g., the download page 168 or the application package 172, back to the client system 130”). And these permissions relate to operations that the installed applications may perform, e.g., opening files, accessing contact information, accessing a camera on the client device. Id. at 9:6–7. These permissions may also indirectly determine whether the installation client can install that app. See id. at 9:33–38. There is no suggestion in Pasha, however, that these permissions have anything to do with the host application, i.e., the second software application. said second software application is eligible to use capabilities of the installation client.” RMTA 25; see also Ex. 1001, 15:11–14 (“The installation client, upon receiving an instant install link, checks the eligibility of the caller and if identified as eligible continues the process of downloading the app.”). Pasha does not teach or suggest checking eligibility of its host application in any way or at any point. Moreover, as Patent Owner points out, Pasha’s App Manager performs the eligibility check after it downloads the app package, further supporting that Pasha’s eligibility check has nothing to do with the host application.9 Dr. Almeroth testifies that “Pasha discloses the App Manager 180 confirming that it has obtained the required permissions, which, in [his] opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand may include inter alia that the ‘second software application’ (e.g., the host application invoking the app manager) is eligible to use its capabilities.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 68. Dr. Almeroth fails to cite any supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Id. Because we find no basis in the record for Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion, we give little weight to this testimony.” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Almeroth testifies that “Pasha discloses the App Manager 180 confirming that it has obtained the required permissions, which, in [his] opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand may include inter alia that the ‘second software application’ (e.g., the host application invoking the app manager) is eligible to use its capabilities.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 68. Dr. Almeroth fails to cite any supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Id. Because we find no basis in the record for Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion, we give little weight to this testimony. 9 During oral argument, Petitioner pointed us to disclosure in Pasha that teaches that the permission dialog may be displayed to the user at different points in the download process. Tr. 47:24–48:8 (citing Ex. 1003, 22:21–42). As Patent Owner pointed out, this disclosure was not relied up on by Petitioner in its papers and is new evidence. Id. at 51:19–22; Paper 46, 4. Petitioner’s argument based on this new evidence is therefore forfeited. But even if we were to consider the cited disclosure from Pasha, it still only suggests that permissions need to come from the server after the download process has been initiated, and are therefore, unrelated to the host application. See Ex. 1003, 22:46–49 (“the requested permissions may be downloaded prior to downloading the application or may be extracted from the application package”). 24, 2022) (precedential) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). As the Board explained in Xerox, such expert testimony “is particularly problematic in cases where, like here, expert testimony is offered not simply to provide a motivation to combine prior-art teachings, but rather to supply a limitation missing from the prior art.” Id. (citing Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 11,157,256 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Berkheimer · Enfish · PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,157,256 - PTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · PGR2023-00013 · APJ Sharon Fenick · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–27 on all asserted grounds; the Board found it more likely than not that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons below, Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’286 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) one to two years of experience working with payment processing and/or digital authentication systems, including familiarity with short-range wireless technologies.” slip op. at 9
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“The Trial Practice Guide states that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. “Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time . . . may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), which is identical to 35 U.S.C. § 326(b)). Although rare circumstances may necessitate two petitions, “the Board finds it unlikely that circumstances will arise where three or more petitions by a petitioner with respect to a particular patent will be appropriate.” Id. To help the Board determine whether multiple petitions are necessary, the Trial Practice Guide further instructs a petitioner filing multiple petitions challenging the same patent to explain “the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner's burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” CTPG 59–60. Additionally, the Trial Practice Guide instructs the patent owner to “clearly proffer any necessary stipulations,” where the patent owner asserts that “the differences identified by the petitioner are directed to an issue that is not material or not in dispute.” Id. at 61. The patent owner may, for example, “seek to avoid additional petitions by proffering a stipulation that certain claim limitations are not disputed or that certain references qualify as prior art.” Id. In light of the particular facts before us, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) on the basis of the filing of two parallel petitions. In particular, we recognize that the two petitions do not include duplicate attacks on the basis of unpatentability over prior art, but rather break the issues into two distinct parts—prior-art based unpatentability challenges, in PGR2023-00012, and 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 challenges here. The usual considerations of fairness, timing, and efficiency do not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. In particular, the petitions were filed concurrently, which means that Petitioner did not gain a timing advantage that might otherwise occur if the petitions were filed serially. Additionally, the proceedings can be coordinated, and a similar or common schedule can be adopted. To the extent that Patent Owner argues (see Prelim. Resp. 55–56) that Petitioner was attempting to avoid providing a single stipulation that (upon institution) Petitioner will pursue neither section 103 grounds on certain art, as per the stipulation offered in PGR2023-00012, nor section 101 and 112 grounds as per the stipulation here (see Pet. 49), discretionary denial of this Petition would not provide such a stipulation. Because we institute both here and in is equivalent to our best understanding of Patent Owner’s desired stipulation “tak[ing] into account” the two Petitions. Accordingly, based on the particular facts and circumstances before us, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the instant Petition under § 324(a) on the basis of the Petitioner’s filing of multiple petitions.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“2. Conclusion We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of the first five Fintiv factors. Because our analysis is fact-driven, no single factor is determinative of our conclusion. Considering these five Fintiv factors together, we determine that they do not favor a discretionary denial. As we do not find that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial, we therefore do not make a determination regarding compelling merits under Fintiv factor 6, and our consideration ends with this conclusion. CommScope, 4–5.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,328,286 - PTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · PGR2023-00012 · APJ Sharon Fenick · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–27 and all asserted grounds after finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“On this record, and for the purposes of institution, we agree that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the information presented on the interface of the card device is not described in the ’891 provisional as being limited to use in an in-store merchant card reader facility. The ’891 provisional describes the card “connect[ing] to a personal computer” for use in generating payment information for online purchases. Ex. 1012 ¶ 17. While Patent Owner argues that the description in the ’891 provisional of “uniquely generat[ing] a credit card number” means a use “unique from that used for in-store transactions,” this description echoes the general description of the use of the card to provide “a unique credit card number . . . for each transaction.” Compare Ex. 1012 ¶ 14, with id. ¶ 17.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) one to two years of experience working with payment processing and/or digital authentication systems, including familiarity with short-range wireless technologies.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Because the trial in the district court litigation, under any of the parties’ proposed approaches, appears likely to begin several months before our deadline to reach a decision, this factor weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We address the meaning of several claim terms below and determine that no additional claim construction is needed for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,328,286 - Ironsource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 17, 2023 · PGR2022-00053 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–22 under § 101, § 102(a) over Pasha, and § 103 over Pasha, Pasha and Yamada, and Pasha and Molinet.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted unless it is determined that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded that the Petition demonstrates it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Neither of those exceptions apply here, and for the reasons below, we find the plain and ordinary meaning of “invoke” or “invoking” to be to call or activate, as proposed by Petitioner. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“to mean “to shift user interaction on the device,” and we disagree with Patent Owner that the claim term requires the shifting to take place without requiring a user interaction. We begin with the language of the independent claims. Claim 1 recites “redirect said device to an app store for downloading said first software application on said device.” Ex. 1001, 21:38–40. The claim language, therefore, does not recite any requirement relating to user interaction during the redirect.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“3. Other Claim Terms We determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other terms in order to determine whether to institute. The parties are reminded claim terms will be based on the complete record developed during trial.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Enfish · PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,157,256 - Ironsource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · PGR2021-00096 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend proposing claims 19–36 is denied, and the parties’ motions to exclude are denied in part and granted in part.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'IneligibleUnpatentable
“3. Analysis On the full record developed during trial, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner’s analysis of the independent claims described above only loosely corresponds to the actual limitations recited in the claim. The Federal Circuit has “cautioned that courts ‘must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims’ by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Petitioner’s analysis of the claim limitations appears to do. Petitioner’s argument that “the essence of all the claims” is captured by a single claim element (f3) not only ignores that that limitation recites performing two specific software tasks simultaneously—which we are not persuaded is an abstract idea—but also asks us to disregard multiple technical aspects recited in the claims, such as identifying a link, determining whether an installation client is available on the device, invoking the installation client, and redirecting to the device an app store. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:6–35. That is, under Step 2A of the Guidance, we are neither persuaded that limitation f3, which Petitioner points us to, recites an abstract idea (Prong 1), nor that the other limitations recited in the independent claims fail to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2). Petitioner characterizes the claims as directed to multitasking, which Petitioner describes as representing a basic task in organizing human activity. Pet. 30. Although the Guidance recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity, including certain activity between a person and a computer, as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we are not persuaded that the claims here fall within the scope of such activity. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships as organizing human activity); October 2019 Update at 5 (“this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings . . . , and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances”). The claimed invention may result in multitasking on the device, but the claims are directed to downloading and installing an application in the background instead of directing the user to an application, and do not recite an abstract idea. And although that process does result in improving user experience, the claims recite more than that mere result; they recite specific steps—invoking, without exiting the foreground software application, the installation client for downloading and installing applications on the device to run in the background—that accomplish the desired result. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding a method that employs a new kind of file in a computer security system directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security writ large). Petitioner thus fails to establish sufficiently that the claims are directed patent ineligible subject matter under Step 2A of the Guidance. We also agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims are somewhat similar to those that the Federal Circuit held patentable in DDR Holdings. The claims there were directed to a method of generating a composite webpage that combined visual elements of a host website with content from a third-party, e.g., by combining the logo, background color, and fonts of the host website with product information from a merchant. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1248. When a user clicked on a link on the host website, the system would construct the composite web page comprising a look and feel description from the host website along with content based on product information from the merchant’s product catalog. Id. at 1250. The court held those claims were not directed at an abstract idea because they addressed the problem of retaining website visitors that, absent the claimed invention, would be instantly transported away from a host’s website after clicking on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink. Id. at 1257.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“1. Independent Claim 1 a) “A mobile device configured for running software applications, comprising:” Petitioner contends that Pasha discloses computer system 600, which” slip op. at 38
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“4. Support in the Original Disclosure A motion to amend may not present substitute claims that introduce new subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) (“A motion to amend may be denied where . . . [t]he amendment seeks . . . introduce new subject matter.”). “Normally, a claim element without support in the original disclosure (i.e., the application as originally filed) merits a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description support.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15, 7. Accordingly, a motion to amend must set forth written description support in the originally filed disclosure of the subject patent for each proposed substitute claim.” Id.” slip op. at 74
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“CTPG at 73–74. Accordingly, Rule 42.23(b) prohibits filing of new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness with a sur-reply. Patent Owner does not argue that the opinions presented in paragraphs 4–13 of Dr. Mao’s declaration are within the scope of §42.23(b). See generally PO MTE Opp. Nor do we find it in the interests of justice to allow this evidence in the case file. Accordingly, we grant in part Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude paragraphs 4–13 of Exhibit 2013 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).22” slip op. at 90
Patent outcomesUS 10,782,951 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,782,951 - Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 4, 2022 · IPR2022-00701 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because JP029 supports claims 1–4 as of April 26, 2002, making the June 2002 Draft H.264 Standard unavailable as prior art for the asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The dispositive issue here is whether Patent Owner shows that the effective filing date of the ’059 patent extends to the filing date of its foreign application, thereby antedating two of Petitioner’s asserted prior art references. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the sole challenged claim. Accordingly, we deny inter partes review of the ’059 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 2001 ¶ 46 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1004 (H.324, 1998), Fig. 1, 1–2). In other words, according to the testimony of Dr. Richardson, which the record supports and Petitioner does not dispute, the applicable standards, known to artisans of ordinary skill prior to the filing date of JP029, show multiplexing and demultiplexing the coded audio and video, thereby satisfying claim 1’s limitations for multiplexing and demultiplexing coded audio data, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments. See Pet. 25.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner
“argument, Petitioner has not shown that such a disclaimer exists in the prosecution history. The purported disavowal of claim scope with respect to the plain meaning of a claim term must be unambiguous, clear, and unmistakable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Petitioner has not made such a showing. Rather, Petitioner points to language that was added to the claim during prosecution, namely, “performing arithmetic coding on a first bit of the binary data corresponding to each absolute value of the coefficients,” and concludes that this language requires coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits, using separate probability tables. Pet. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1012, 656). We agree with Patent Owner, that the plain meaning of this claim language does not require coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits, using separate probability tables. Prelim. Resp. 57–58. Turning to the prosecution history, Petitioner does not explain how the applicant’s remarks to the Examiner in the prosecution history show a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. See Pet. Reply 9–10. Further, the applicant did not state to the Examiner that the claim requires coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits, using separate probability tables. See Ex. 1012, 662–664. On this limited record, it is not clear how the applicant’s arguments in the prosecution history persuasively show that the applicant made a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. Therefore, we construe the claim according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which does not require coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits using separate probability tables as alleged by Petitioner.” slip op. at 25
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s claim construction regarding prosecution history disclaimer does not address “unanticipated and incorrect statements” made by Patent Owner “regarding the law with respect to written description and the disclosure of the subject patent and priority applications, to which Petitioners need to respond.” Ex. 1041. Specifically, Petitioner does not allege an incorrect statement in Patent Owner’s contention that “Petitioner admits that JP029 discloses performing the encoding on all bits of binary data, including the ‘first bit’ of data.” Prelim. Resp. 55 (citing Pet. 29). Nor does Petitioner allege an incorrect statement in Patent Owner’s contention that “Petitioner’s expert opines – with no explanation or citation – that the claims require ‘separately arithmetically encoding/decoding a first bit of binary data using a separate probability table from the probability table (or tables) used to encode/decode the remaining bits of binary data.’ Nothing in the claims require this.” Id. at 57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Instead, Petitioner, for the first time in its Reply, proposes construing the claim beyond its plain and ordinary meaning in order to rebut Patent Owner’s contention that the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim does not require coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits, using separate probability tables. Petitioner has not explained how Patent Owner made an incorrect statement, nor has Petitioner explained why Patent Owner’s construction of the claim based on the claim’s plain and ordinary meaning was unanticipated. See Pet. 7 (“[T]he Petition does not present any controversy over claim meaning and the Board need not construe any terms.”); see id. at 8 (“Petitioner maintains that the Challenged Claims would have been obvious under any reasonable construction.”). Petitioner’s new claim construction alleging prosecution history disclaimer, and Petitioner’s corresponding new argument based on the alleged disclaimer, are untimely.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,970,059 - Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 4, 2022 · IPR2022-00629 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner established claim 1’s priority to JP665, antedating the references relied on in both obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The dispositive issue here is whether Patent Owner shows that the effective filing date of the ’878 patent extends to the filing date of its foreign application, thereby antedating two of Petitioner’s asserted prior art references. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the sole challenged claim. Accordingly, we deny inter partes review of the ’878 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“. . . each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571. To satisfy this written description requirement, a priority application must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351. “It is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession,” and “a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Id. at 1352.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on its expert, Dr. Schonfeld, Petitioner contends as follows: A POSITA at the time would have had at least an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or a related field (or equivalent work experience in the that field), and two or more years of experience with audio, image, or video coding. Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. The relevant experience would include a working understanding of the then-existing audio and video coding standards, including ongoing work on emerging standards. Id. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Dr. Schonfeld adds that “a POSITA would have a working understanding of the then existing audio and video encoding standards (e.g., H.263), as well as ongoing work on emerging standards (e.g., H.26L/H.264).” 1003 ¶ 24. Dr. Richardson, Patent Owner’s expert, agrees with, and applies, Dr. Schonfeld’s proposed level of ordinary skill. Ex. 2001 ¶ 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Based on a review of the preliminary record, for purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as agreed upon by Dr. Schonfeld and Dr. Richardson, because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’878 patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As Petitioner argues, it is not necessary to explicitly construe any claim terms. See Pet. 7. Any construction would have no effect in the analysis of the dispositive priority issue here. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,139,878 - Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 4, 2022 · IPR2022-00628 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner established priority to JP665, antedating the references asserted against sole challenged claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The dispositive issue here is whether Patent Owner shows that the effective filing date of the ’238 patent extends to the filing date of its foreign application, thereby antedating two of Petitioner’s asserted prior art references. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the sole challenged claim. Accordingly, we deny inter partes review of the ’238 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“In summary, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, an artisan of ordinary skill would not have read JP665’s disclosed video improvements to H.26L as limited only to a coded video system (i.e., without audio) in the face of known related audio/video coding standards specifically contemplating video coding standards including H.26L and its predecessor H.263. Moreover, the parties agree that an artisan of ordinary skill would have known of the existing audio and video encoding standards. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2001 ¶ 30; supra § IIIB. Therefore, Patent Owner shows that JP665 conveys possession of a component (video) used in a known system as defined by known standards (coded audio and video in multiplexing and demultiplexing systems) as required by claim 1’s preamble, element 1a, and element 1b. Based on the full record as generally summarized above, Patent Owner establishes priority of the ’238 patent to JP665, thereby antedating Bjontegaard and JVT-C167, which the Petition relies upon to allege obviousness in Grounds 1 and 2, respectively. This priority showing is fatal to the Petition’s obviousness showing.” slip op. at 22
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“In summary, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, an artisan of ordinary skill would not have read JP665’s disclosed video improvements to H.26L as limited only to a coded video system (i.e., without audio) in the face of known related audio/video coding standards specifically contemplating video coding standards including H.26L and its predecessor H.263. Moreover, the parties agree that an artisan of ordinary skill would have known of the existing audio and video encoding standards. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2001 ¶ 30; supra § IIIB. Therefore, Patent Owner shows that JP665 conveys possession of a component (video) used in a known system as defined by known standards (coded audio and video in multiplexing and demultiplexing systems) as required by claim 1’s preamble, element 1a, and element 1b. Based on the full record as generally summarized above, Patent Owner establishes priority of the ’238 patent to JP665, thereby antedating Bjontegaard and JVT-C167, which the Petition relies upon to allege obviousness in Grounds 1 and 2, respectively. This priority showing is fatal to the Petition’s obviousness showing.” slip op. at 22
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,769,238 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Dolby Laboratories Licensing CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00275 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, and 8 were not shown unpatentable because they were entitled to the April 23, 2012 priority date, making the asserted references unavailable as prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Alleged RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja at 32. As in SharkNinja and AIT Remand, the alleged unnamed RPIs here have a relationship with the petitioner. SharkNinja at 16; AIT Remand at 20–21. Unlike in AIT Remand, however, neither Petitioner nor any of the Alleged RPIs were sued. SharkNinja at 2; AIT Remand at 24–26; Pet. Reply 28 (asserting that “[n]o one, including no [Petitioner] member, has challenged the patent, and, to [Petitioner’s] knowledge, no one has been sued or threatened with suit on it,” and that thus, “no alleged RPI is estopped under §315(e) and/or time-barred under §315(b), the framework’s driving policy considerations”) (citing AIT Remand at 2, SharkNinja at 32). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See, e.g., Paper 5 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 2; PO Resp. 17–37. Accordingly, we determine that neither issues of time bar nor issues of estoppel are implicated. Under the Board’s precedential decision in Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., the Board’s jurisdiction to consider a petition does not require an identification of all RPIs in a petition. IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential); see also Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB July 18, 2017) (“Evidence [of failure to identify all RPIs] is, at best, suggestive of an issue that is not jurisdictional.”). The Federal Circuit has held that § 312(a)(2) is not jurisdictional. See Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (reiterating the Board’s aim to achieve a “just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of inter partes review proceedings and citing Lumentum’s holding that jurisdiction is maintained even where a petition does not identify all real parties in interest). In the present proceeding, there is no allegation that Petitioner’s exclusion of the Alleged RPIs should result in termination of the proceeding for any reason other than for the alleged failure of jurisdiction. See PO Resp. 21. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence that any of the Alleged RPIs is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted any of the Alleged RPIs to gain some advantage in our forum. Therefore, we decline to make the requested determination.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“Alleged RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja at 32. As in SharkNinja and AIT Remand, the alleged unnamed RPIs here have a relationship with the petitioner. SharkNinja at 16; AIT Remand at 20–21. Unlike in AIT Remand, however, neither Petitioner nor any of the Alleged RPIs were sued. SharkNinja at 2; AIT Remand at 24–26; Pet. Reply 28 (asserting that “[n]o one, including no [Petitioner] member, has challenged the patent, and, to [Petitioner’s] knowledge, no one has been sued or threatened with suit on it,” and that thus, “no alleged RPI is estopped under §315(e) and/or time-barred under §315(b), the framework’s driving policy considerations”) (citing AIT Remand at 2, SharkNinja at 32). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See, e.g., Paper 5 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 2; PO Resp. 17–37. Accordingly, we determine that neither issues of time bar nor issues of estoppel are implicated.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Alleged RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja at 32. As in SharkNinja and AIT Remand, the alleged unnamed RPIs here have a relationship with the petitioner. SharkNinja at 16; AIT Remand at 20–21. Unlike in AIT Remand, however, neither Petitioner nor any of the Alleged RPIs were sued. SharkNinja at 2; AIT Remand at 24–26; Pet. Reply 28 (asserting that “[n]o one, including no [Petitioner] member, has challenged the patent, and, to [Petitioner’s] knowledge, no one has been sued or threatened with suit on it,” and that thus, “no alleged RPI is estopped under §315(e) and/or time-barred under §315(b), the framework’s driving policy considerations”) (citing AIT Remand at 2, SharkNinja at 32). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See, e.g., Paper 5 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 2; PO Resp. 17–37. Accordingly, we determine that neither issues of time bar nor issues of estoppel are implicated.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“With the exception of the date applied, the two definitions appear, on the whole, consistent. Petitioner specifies the qualifications that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had as of July 2016, whereas Patent Owner’s declarant ties the qualifications to April 2012. The record provides no reason that the differences between the two definitions are attributable to the dates provided. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we determine would apply at all relevant times. This level of skill comports with the teachings of the ’577 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis would be the same if we applied the level of skill described by Patent Owner’s declarant at all relevant times.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,237,577 not shown unpatentable§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,237,577 - Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2021-01114 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 17–19, 26–31, 35, and 36 because substantially the same arguments were previously presented and Petitioner did not show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“For the foregoing reasons, the ’882 application identified the ’886 provisional with particularity and would have directly led an ordinarily skilled artisan to the document intended to be incorporated. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred in determining that the ’882 application (Chu ’330) incorporated the ’886 provisional by reference.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelOther
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
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.