- Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00860 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Dilley, Pai, and Wang combination renders the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’573 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of work or research experience in the field of content delivery management or networks. Work experience can substitute for formal education and additional formal education can substitute for work experience. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 70). Patent Owner asserts that “the Board does not need to resolve the appropriate level of skill for a POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art] for purposes of deciding institution because the Petition fails under any articulation of a POSA.” Prelim Resp. 10. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’573 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that no claim terms need to be expressly construed by the Board and all terms should be given their ordinary meaning. Pet. 12. Patent Owner agrees that the Phillips standard applies. Prelim. Resp. 10. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms at this juncture. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“We consider the disclosures of the Provisional Application, which refer to cases 1 and 2, in which requests are redirected to an origin server for lower popularity content and to a parent server for medium popularity content at steps 522 and 524 as shown in Figure 5, respectively, wherein the edge server receives a redirect from the popularity service without a “followme” flag. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 43, 44. The Provisional Application also discloses that, by comparison, if there is a “follow-me” redirect sent to the edge server, it obtains and caches a resource as shown at step 528 for higher popularity content. Id. ¶ 44. On this record, as Patent Owner asserts, these disclosures are consistent with technical reasons provided in the Provisional Application for instructing the edge server not to cache unpopular resources. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 68–69. In light of these disclosures, we preliminarily find support for Dr. Shenoy’s testimony that, even with the words “instruction to not cache” are not literally recited in the Provisional Application, caching and not caching are alternative options that indicate the instruction to the edge server that will be implemented for each option. See Ex. 2014 ¶ 56. Further, these disclosures provide support for Dr. Shenoy’s testimony that the disclosures “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the edge server receiving an instruction to not cache the resource (and instead simply forward the redirect).” Id. In re Johnson states that “it is not true that the factual context out of which the question under § 112 arises is immaterial. Quite the contrary. Here, . . . the ‘written description’ in the [] specification supported the claims in the absence of the limitation, and that specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining.” See Johnson, 558 F.2d at 1019. This is consistent with M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(i) which states, “[i]f alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims.” M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(i). Further, “the failure of the specification to specifically mention a limitation that later appears in the claims is not a fatal one when one skilled in the art would recognize upon reading the specification that the new language reflects what the specification shows has been invented.” All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prod., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Even though we do not discern that the Provisional Application explicitly discloses an “instruction to not cache,” at least on this preliminary record, and for the purposes of this Decision, there is positive recital of instructions to cache in the Provisional Application and Petitioner has provided sufficient supporting evidence that caching and not caching are alternative options. Further, there is sufficient evidence, in the context of the disclosures of written description support in the Provisional Application, providing support for Dr. Shenoy’s testimony that Patent Owner had possession of an edge server receiving an instruction to not cache the resource. Nonetheless, we invite additional briefing on these issues, including issues relating to alternative options of caching and not caching. On this preliminary record, we find that the ’573 patent has a priority date of April 2, 2008, which predates the earliest possible date on which Newton-471 could be effective as prior art, September 30, 2014 (the date on which the earliest application in the priority chain of Newton-471 was filed). Accordingly, we preliminarily find that Newton-471 is not prior art to the challenged claims. Thus, on the present record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1–20 are anticipated by Newton-471.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,924,573 - Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00806 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the § 103 challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’517 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see also In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 609 (CCPA 1977). To comply with the “written description” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, an applicant must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis omitted). The invention claimed does not have to be described in ipsis verbis to satisfy the written description requirement. Union Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The question of written description support should not be confused, however, with the question of what would have been obvious to the artisan. Whether one skilled in the art would find the claimed invention obvious in view of the disclosure is not an issue in the “written description” inquiry. In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977). “A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“motivated to combine Beaumont and Hasan. Pet. 13–14. Petitioner argues that “Beaumont does not describe a specific interface for manually entering [policy and rules] preferences, Hasan discloses a GUI for exactly this type of policy specification.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Petitioner asserts that Hasan discloses that its Java-based, “platform independent” GUI takes the form of a “familiar tree structure” and allows administrators to “configure device and service configuration data and policy information.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, code (57), 7:7–26, 8:19–29, 18:9–20). Petitioner asserts that the combination of Beaumont and Hasan would have been straightforward, and a person of skill “would have been motivated to incorporate Hasan’s GUI so that administrators could conveniently configure preferences for Beaumont’s DNS servers through an intuitive interface.” Id. (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–71; Ex. 1007 ¶ 23). Patent Owner does not present any arguments on the rationale to combine. See generally Prelim. Resp. We find that at this juncture Petitioner has presented sufficient rationale to combine Beaumont and Hasan.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“We agree with Patent Owner that its understanding of a policy as a rule is consistent with the disclosure in the ’517 patent that “a policy may be created by generating a decision tree representing the ATC rules.” See Ex. 1001, 9:1–3. We do not agree with Patent Owner, however, that Beaumont in combination with Hasan does not disclose the claimed policy features as claimed. As discussed above, Petitioner relies upon Beaumont in combination with Hasan with its teachings on the use of Java-based GUIs in the form of a tree structure that allows administrators to configure device and service configuration data, as well as policy information. See Ex. 1006, code (57), 7:7–26, 8:19–29. For the policy teachings, Petitioner relies upon Beaumont’s “content provider DNS server that directs requests (traffic) according to a preference table (policy).” Pet. 15–16 (citing Fig. 1, ¶¶ 6, 17, 23). Petitioner also asserts that the Beaumont-Hasan GUI would enable an administrator to set policies for a selected content delivery server to allow setting server preferences and rules. Id. at 17–18 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 76–77). In support, Dr. Lin testifies that: The Beaumont-Hasan GUI would enable an administrator to select a content delivery server (e.g., in Japan) and set policies for that server. Hasan, 8:30–36, 10:25–34, 10:53–67; Beaumont, [0031]. For example, given the description in Hasan, selecting a server would bring up a menu enabling an administrator to assign the preferences shown in Fig. 3 of Beaumont. Hasan, 10:25–34; Beaumont, Figs. 2, 3, [0029]–[0031]. A POSITA would thus have recognized the combined GUI to “support[] the setting of said at least one policy using a decision tree representing rules” because it is presented in a “familiar tree structure” and would allow users to set server preferences and rules. Ex. 1003 ¶ 77 (emphasis added). Beaumont provides support for Dr. Lin’s testimony. Beaumont discloses that “rules such as selecting one [a server] based on user preferences can be used . . . [f]or example, a preference number can be assigned to each content delivery server and a destination domain.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 31. Beaumont further states that “FIG. 3 shows an illustrative example of incorporating preference numbers in a column.” Id. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Beaumont discloses that rules or policies, represented by the preference number, are represented in the table shown in Figure 3 of Beaumont. Dr. Lin also testifies that in the Beaumont-Hasan combination “the GUI supports the setting of” policy is taught. Ex. 1003 ¶ 77. Hasan provides support that service policies can be modified by the use of a GUI. See Ex. 1006, 8:30–36, 10:25–34, 10:53–67. Accordingly, in the combination of Beaumont and Hasan, wherein the preference database is replaced by the GUI decision tree, Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence at this juncture that the combination of Beaumont and Hasan teaches that the GUI obtains a policy, the preference number, for the direction of network traffic, where the GUI supports the setting of the policy using a decision tree representing rules.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,645,517 - Reolink Innovation Inc. / Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co., Ltd. v. Throughtek Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00509 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Throughtek-2012 and the Lorex Video; claims 1–3, 6, 10, 12–14, 17, and 18 are also unpatentable under two other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Bims, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’842 patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of work experience with network and communication technologies. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 15–16). Patent Owner does not provide any proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’842 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts “no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 55; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 701 Fed. Appx. 946, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Petitioner states “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1303; 37 C.F.R. §42.100). Patent Owner presents no proposed claim constructions. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS RE47,842 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham - PTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · PGR2024-00034 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds after finding at least one claim more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute a post-grant review, we must determine that “the information presented in the petition . . . 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 set forth below, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We note that the identification of a Ph.D. as an example of “more formal education” creates a vast range of education relative to a bachelor’s degree. Thus, we treat the identification of a Ph.D. just as it is—an example—and not a requirement. In this case, “more formal education” can be satisfied by a level of education less than a Ph.D (but greater than a bachelor’s degree). Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, definition, limited as discussed above, for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have understood Unger’s disclosure to “suggest the use of a torsion spring to facilitate attachment and detachment, because torsion springs are designed to impart this functionality.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 118). Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood that there were a limited number of ways to impart the referenced resilient or flexible ‘manipulation,’” and “would have been motivated to look to various known solutions to impart the suggested functionality, including the torsional spring mechanism of Smith that is used in a similar hearing protection device application for a similar purpose as Unger’s mounting arms (to apply a clamping force).” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,736,855 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · PGR2024-00026 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–7 and all grounds because Petitioner showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim lacks written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments, cited portions of the Specification, and supporting testimonial evidence demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–7 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“patent describes that “angular position transducer 78 is placed on top of swing leg pivot shaft 24” and that “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate and duplicates the angular movements of swing leg 20 about the pivot shaft.” Ex. 1001, 12:15–16, 12:20–22, Figs. 5, 7. The ’723 patent also describes that “[a]ngular position transducer 78 is mounted inside . . . protective can 90 . . . which is bolted to hinge bracket 28 via an upright holding arm 92” and that “trigger pin 94 projects upwardly from the top surface of pivot shaft 24 and cooperates with angular position transducer 78 to generate an angular position signal.” Id. at 12:28–33, Fig. 5. These descriptions expressly convey that angular position transducer 78 is on pivot shaft 24 and mounted inside protective can 90 that is bolted to hinge bracket 28. Id. at 12:15–16, 12:20–22, 12:28–30, Figs. 5, 7; see also Prelim. Resp. 17 (describing the same embodiment shown in Figs. 5 and 7). According to Petitioner, the ’723 patent describes the pivot shaft as part of the hinge bracket, not the modular frame or swing leg. Pet. 109–110 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:42–46, 12:17–22). On the preliminary record, we agree because the cited portions of the Specification describe that a “hinge bracket is interposed between each swing leg and an associated surface of the bolsters and includes a fixed, upright pivot shaft that pivotally engages the swing leg for pivotal movements” and “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate.” Ex. 1001, 7:42–45, 12:20–21. We also agree that “even if one were to find that the hinge bracket is part of either the modular frame or swing leg (contrary to the claims and specification treating these all as separate components), the specification would only provide written description for one of the claimed alternatives.” Pet. 110 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this preliminary stage, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We will also not use our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition based on arguments previously presented in IPR2021-00135, because Petitioner relies on a Board determination regarding claim 8 from IPR2021- 00136, not arguments previously made for claim 1 in IPR2021-00135. Pet. 111–115, 119; Prelim. Resp. 8–9; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Furthermore, we determined the effective filing date of claim 8 of the ’571 patent without deciding, that other challenged claims, such as claim 1, were entitled to their earliest possible effective filing date. See Godberson-Smith, Paper 61 at 11, 12.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,772,723 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · IPR2022-01564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Keith; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground over Hanson and Keith.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure,” and the test “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” of that application. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. But, “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.” slip op. at 33
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.”). slip op. at 13
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2022). “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - PTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · PGR2022-00052 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 1–27 and denied substitute claims 28–51 because the original disclosure lacked written-description support for the claimed CSP limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, with the exclusion of “at least” because it introduces ambiguity. Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner “does not dispute the Board’s findings on the qualifications of a POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art] for purposes of this proceeding.” See RMTA 13. We determine that Petitioner’s definition, with the exclusion of “at least,” is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’034 patent and we use this level of skill here in the evaluation of the Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that “claim construction is not necessary” and that “the meaning of the claims would be easily understood by a POSA.” RMTA 13. In the Petition, Petitioner proposed constructions for the terms “client device” and “first server,” and the original claims were rendered obvious under this construction. Pet. 23–27. Petitioner does not assert that the substitute claims of the Revised Motion to Amend are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art or are patent ineligible. See generally RMTA Opp. Nor does Petitioner’s patentability challenge of the substitute claims contend that express construction is needed. See generally id. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that express claim construction is unnecessary. We need only construe terms that are necessary to resolve disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“written description requirement. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989); All Dental Prodx LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., 309 F.3d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The issue here, however, is whether the disclosure of the ’034 patent would have reasonably conveyed to a person of ordinary skill that the inventors had possession of the CSP Limitations. Ariad, 598” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“to cancelling claims 1–27; and deny-in-part the Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claims 28–51. In summary: Motion to Amend Outcome Claim(s) Original Claims Cancelled by Amendment 1–27 Substitute Claims Proposed in the Amendment 28–51 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Granted Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,272,034 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “‘It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.’” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. We agree with Petitioner there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. We find that the disclosure of the ’653 application—limited to general teachings of a smart card, an operating system, and a smart card manager—is insufficient to show possession of limitation [1(j)]. See Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. As we explained above, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571−72. The ’653 Application contains no disclosure of replacing applications, even if the disclosure might render such replacing obvious, it is not sufficient to show the possession required to establish entitlement to a priority date. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’724 patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than March 4, 2012.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that “[t]he parties agree on the level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for all terms not expressly construed below,” and indicates that in parallel District Court litigation, the parties agreed to claim construction for the term “emulator device” to mean “hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that the term “application” should be construed to mean “‘software program suitable for being executed on a portable device,’” but that the “distinction between the parties’ respective proposals need not be resolved for this proceeding.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner finally contends that the phrase “a portion of or in entirety” in each independent claim means “in its entirety or partially,” but not both. Id. at 9. Patent Owner submits that “[t]he parties agree that the Board should construe ‘emulator device’ as ‘hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.’” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner “does not believe that any other terms require construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding.” Id. We apply the agreed upon constructions above, but otherwise find that no express constructions are necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that, even if the applications were stored in “generic memory” as Patent Owner contends, Zhu provides adequate security and would not undermine Petitioner’s motivation to combine. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380 (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”). Indeed, Zhu addresses the problem Patent Owner contends it would cause in the combination.3 As Zhu 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should be precluded from discussing Zhu’s encryption embodiment because it was not raised in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. The claims do not recite anything about how the data should be stored. Thus, it is not surprising that the Petition did not address it. Patent Owner raised the teaching away argument regarding the security of the data. See PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner relies on the exact same mapping, same motivation, and same arguments why Zhu accounted for certain limitations. See Reply 4–11. Petitioner’s Reply merely explained that Zhu did address the problem Patent Owner contended would “teach away” from the combination. Indeed, Patent Owner was aware of Zhu’s teachings and addressed them in their Patent Owner Response. The Federal recognizes, “[l]oading one of the smart card applications already resident on the smart card to another memory location on the mobile device can provide sufficient memory for the selected smart card application, but can also create a security problem.” Ex. 1006 (Zhu), 3:25–34. To address this problem, Zhu proposes encrypting these applications in generic memory which “reduces the possibility of unauthorized access to the information.” Id. at 3:59–61, 8:30–55, 9:28–33; Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6. Although acknowledging this disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, testifies that Zhu’s encryption is inadequate and that encryption would have certain drawbacks. See Ex. 2002 (Weaver Decl.) ¶ 69. We find this testimony, which directly contradicts the teachings of Zhu that encryption is an adequate solution, lacks sufficient support to be entitled to much weight. Dr. Weaver provides no citations to support his contention that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would find encryption so inadequate or problematic as he now contends. Moreover, we find that Dr. Weaver’s testimony on cross examination provides an additional, independent basis to give this testimony little weight. On cross examination, Dr. Weaver contended that there was nothing uniquely inadequate about the particular encryption scheme disclosed in Zhu, but rather that his “opinion was more general, that encryption schemes known in the 2012 time frame were all breakable with computing power and time,” and thus, inadequate Circuit has explained that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding Zhu’s encryption are proper. for storing payment applications in a mobile device’s general memory. Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 26:11–23; see also id. at 23:3–8 (“[D]oes encryption ever provide a sufficiently high security to permit storing payment application on a mobile device’s general memory? A. No”); 24:15–25:23 (testifying all publicly known encryption schemes in 2012 were breakable). However, when confronted with the fact that the ’724 patent discloses storing payment application on general baseband memory using an encryption method that was breakable, id. at 26:24–29:7, Dr. Weaver testified that this encryption method was sufficient to allow storing payment applications in general baseband memory even though it was “not perfectly secure,” id. at 29:8–14. Dr. Weaver provides no explanation or rationale why the encryption method in the ’724 patent, which he admits suffers from the same drawbacks he identified with respect to Zhu, is sufficient, but other encryption methods would not be sufficient. In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner attempts to rehabilitate Dr. Weaver’s testimony with justifications and qualifications not found in his original testimony. Sur-Reply 7–8. Yet, Dr. Weaver’s testimony discussed above was clear and unequivocal. See Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 24:15–29:14. Patent Owner made no effort to redirect his testimony at his deposition, so it cannot now do so through mere attorney argument. We find the inconsistency between Dr. Weaver’s treatment of Zhu and his treatment of similar disclosure in the ’724 patent exposes the insufficient reasoning supporting his opinions regarding the adequacy of Zhu’s use of encryption in the combination. Accordingly, we give no weight to his testimony that a skilled artisan would not have combined Zhu with a Buhot/GPC system due to security concerns. In contrast, we find the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the use of encryption and the tradeoffs with the benefits of adopting Zhu’s memory management technique, which he offers in his Supplemental Declaration, to be well-reasoned, consistent with the disclosure of Zhu and the ’724 patent4, and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. As Petitioner recognizes, “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver testified, decryption without access to the security keys is an extremely computationally intensive and time-consuming process. Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 23:17–25:2; see also Ex. 10175, 132. Mr. Smith testifies that the benefits of using encryption would be sufficient to resolve the security concerns Patent Owner raises, and that any burden of generating a certificate would be outweighed by the benefits of using encryption and the memory advantages Zhu’s technique would offer. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s security concerns would be” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,018,724 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,018,724 - PTAB · Apr 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Keith anticipates at least claims 1 and 10.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1‒14 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Under the circumstances presented, where the priority date of the challenged claims is disputed, we conclude it is not unreasonable for Petitioner to present separate challenges, one of which relies on references that are prior art only if the challenged claims are not entitled to Patent Owner’s claimed priority date, which has yet to be finally determined. See TPG 59 (stating that “a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references” can be a potential reason for the Board to institute trial on multiple petitions challenging the same patent). Thus, on the present record, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this Petition on the basis of Petitioner filing multiple petitions.” slip op. at 46
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field or equivalent coursework or experience, and one to two years of experience with mobile device applications and retail POS systems,” also noting that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 18. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proffered level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’435 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We determine that an express construction of this or any other claim term is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - Snap Inc. / Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01294 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held all challenged claims 1–25 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds and denied Patent Owner’s contingent motions to amend.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Snap proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’599 patent would have possessed “an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of content presentation and context-based systems/processes.” Snap Pet. 3 (citing Snap IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–32); Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 32. Snap further asserts that additional “education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that Snap’s proposed description of the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art aligned with the technology and claims of the ’599 patent. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7. For this proceeding, Patent Owner and Dr. Martin apply this level of skill in the art. Snap PO Resp. 11–12; Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 48–50. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the Decision on Institution, we adopt Snap’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Martin also provides consistent testimony on this issue. Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 81–82. Put simply, the Specification’s disclosure is that the set of rules for multiple content packages includes an expected response, and actions are then performed based on whether an expected response is or is not provided. Moreover, as Dr. Almeroth testifies, neither the claims nor the Specification use the term “unexpected response”—rather the Specification only identifies an “expected response.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 42. Accordingly, the disclosures in Table 1 and the Specification support Dr. Almeroth’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “the claimed ‘determin[e/ing]’ limitation requires what it plainly recites: ‘determin[e/ing] whether the received response matches the expected response[]’. . . . [i]t does not require an unexpected response not known to the system.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 51.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“time,’ ‘type of location,’ and other contextual information to automatically determine whether users would like to undertake learning activities.” Twitter Pet. Reply 18 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 1005, 2 3, 5 (“A check . . . to see if the information from the database corresponds with the location sensor (i.e. a check on whether the learner is really keeping his/her schedule).”), Fig.1; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1025 ¶ 49; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85, 157–162, 238, 435, 451, 517; Twitter Pet. 20–21). Accordingly, the evidence of record support that Yau teaches that context triggers the display of a content piece, such as an exercise/test/quiz. Patent Owner also argues that Twitter asserts that PALLES’ content piece is “‘exercise[s],’ ‘test[s],’ and/or ‘MP Quiz[zes],’” but also contends that Yau’s “formal assessment” is the claimed content piece. Twitter PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that “Twitter points back to its limitation 12.1 PALLAS evidence for the purported ‘content piece’” and also does not mention Yau for limitation 12.5 and 12.6 and “only conclusorily states that ‘PALLAS in view of Yau renders obvious triggering an exercise/test/quiz.’” Id. Patent Owner’s arguments overlook Twitter’s assertion, with Dr. Turnbull’s supporting testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Yau’s formal assessments are “tests with answers for comparing against learner’s responses to assess knowledge/performance/skill (contrasting with ‘un-assessed’ exercises whose responses are unchecked).” Twitter Pet. 43; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶ 154. Further, Patent Owner overlooks Petitioner’s assertion that it is implementing PALLAS’s context-triggerbased content display using Yau’s teachings of displaying assessments/questions based on context. Twitter Pet. 43. Patent Owner also asserts that in the PALLAS-Yau combination, Twitter does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art in the manner Petitioner alleges. Twitter PO Resp. 42. Patent Owner argues that “PALLAS says nothing about forcing quizzes, tests, or exercises on its users without the users asking for such exercises,” and a person of skill would understand that the combined system still requires that a student select a learning activity and that PALLAS’s system should be unobtrusive because learners “may have small time slots to engage in learning.” Id. (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 168; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1004, 54). Patent Owner further contends that “Twitter’s conclusory, hindsight-driven statements” do not suffice and PALLAS teaches away from the modifications suggested by Twitter. Id. at 42–43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 144). Patent Owner argues that because a learner may not have time to complete a test, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to change PALLAS to trigger exercises/tests/quizzes based on location or time. Id. at 43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 142–144). The evidence of record does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 115
- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“2. Enlarging Scope of Claims Patent Owner asserts that it proposes narrowing limitations in direct response to the grounds of unpatentability involved in this proceeding. See, e.g., Snap Mot. 3–4. Facebook argues Patent Owner is “improperly attempting to enlarge the scope of the original claims.” Facebook Pet. Opp. 1. Facebook asserts, “[i]f ‘an expected response’ means one or more expected responses, therefore, determining whether the received response ‘matches the expected response’ means that the received response must match [all of] the one or more previously-recited expected responses in the content package.” Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). Facebook then argues “the term ‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response,’” because “an ‘expected response’ does not include any conceivable or possible response; it is a response that is expected.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis omitted). Twitter argues that “‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response’ because a ‘predefined response’ can include any possible response as long as that response has been somehow defined in advance.” Twitter Pet. Opp. 2. We consider the amendments in view of the claim as a whole. Although the term “one predefined response” may be broader than “an expected response,” we also consider the amended portion “wherein the received response is expected if the received response matches one or more of the at least one predefined response,” and “the received response is unexpected if the received response does not match any of the at least one predefined response.” Unless the response had been predefined within the content package, any “received response” could not be considered “expected” under the claims, and the additional clause requires a match of the response with the predefined response to be deemed “expected.” This equates to an equivalent scope to the original claim. This is consistent with Dr. Martin’s testimony, which we credit, that he is not aware of a situation where the substitute but not original claims are infringed because “[t]he substitute claims would only be satisfied when a ‘predefined response’ in the substitute claims is an ‘expected response’ in the original claims.” Facebook IPR, Ex. 2023 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 136
Patent outcomesUS 8,489,599 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,489,599
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.