- PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01489 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Cohen anticipates the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Identity of terminology is not required for a claim element to be met directly by the prior art. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted) (“[T]his is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”). For anticipation, we take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 13
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Wrinkl, Inc. v. Slack Technologies, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00620 (D. Del. May 23, 2024). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also states that a “second IPR was filed against the same patent in proceeding IPR2024-01490.” Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner does not argue that we should exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Petitioner uses more than one petition to challenge the ’731 patent. challenges the alleged priority date of the ’731 patent (IPR2024-01489) (‘First Petition’) and the second petition assumes that the Patent Owner’s claimed priority date is valid, and addresses prior art references predating that priority date (IPR2024-01490) (‘Second Petition’).” Ex. 1019, 1. In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary” including “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” CTPG 59. Such is the case here. Patent Owner does not file any Preliminary Response or other paper disputing Petitioner’s use of two petitions to challenge the claims of the ’731 patent. Based on the record before us, we consider the merits of both petitions because Petitioner’s stated reasons for filing two petitions are consistent with the CTPG. See generally Ex. 1019 (citing CTPG, 59 (“the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references)). C. The ’731 Patent” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner first must raise the issue of entitlement to a claimed priority date by “identifying, specifically, the features, claims, and ancestral application or applications allegedly lacking § 112 support for the claims based on the identified features.” Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 8 at 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014); Mission Integrated Techs., LLC v. Joshua Clemente, IPR2023-01285, Paper 16 at 18 (PTAB Feb. 23, 2024). Then, Patent Owner must make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier filing date(s), in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised by the petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“two years of experience in the graphical user interface field” or, alternatively “a master’s degree in computer science (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,973,731 - Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · PGR2023-00031 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable over the asserted obviousness or indefiniteness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. A post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , 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 (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’869 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 16). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 33. Considering the subject matter of the ’869 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification of the ’869 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,409,869 - Cradlepoint, Inc. / Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. 3g Licensing S.A.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00584 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 16–19, 21, 22, 39, 40, and 42 are unpatentable under § 103: Meeting45 anticipates claims 16–19, 21, 22, and 39, and Meeting45 with Meeting45bis renders claims 40 and 42 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In order to obtain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application, 35 U.S.C. § 120 requires that the earlier application include a disclosure that complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–2 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To comply with the written description requirement, a specification “must describe the invention sufficiently to convey to a person of skill in the art that the patentee had possession of the claimed invention at the time of the application, i.e., that the patentee invented what is claimed.” Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). The written description requirement “guards against the inventor’s overreaching by insisting that he recount his invention in such detail that his future claims can be determined to be encompassed within his original creation.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[O]ne skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). “Entitlement to a filing date extends only to the subject matter that is disclosed; not to that which is obvious . . . Therefore the parent application must actually or inherently disclose the elements of the later-” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Disclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that the disclosures of the ’625 patent cited by Patent Owner “‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). “‘To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’ and must ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). “Disavowal requires that ‘the specification [or prosecution history] make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature,’ or is clearly limited to a particular form of the invention.” Id. at 1372 (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the usage and description of the term E-AGCH in documents accompanying the 3GPP TS 25.211 v6.2.0 (2004-09) standard along with at least one later version––3GPP TS 25.211 v6.7.0 cited by Patent Owner in its infringement complaint (see, e.g., Ex. 1017, 3)––are consistent and that E-AGCH would have been known and understood by a POSITA to carry the meaning set forth therein as of the filing date of the application underlying the ’625 patent, March 31, 2005.10 We further conclude that one of skill in the art would have understood that the patentee used that term in the ’625 patent in accordance with the 3GPP’s definition.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“accessibility with respect to any of the cited references. See generally PO Resp. 17–18. For the reasons that follow, we find that Petitioner’s showing sufficiently demonstrates public availability and accessibility for Meeting45, Meeting39, and Meeting45bis prior to March 31, 2005. 1. Meeting45 Petitioner asserts that Meeting45 (Ex. 1004) “is a 3GPP change request document that was publicly available on the 3GPP FTP server no later than December 3, 2004.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 64, 77). In support of this assertion, Petitioner cites the Bishop Declaration, in which Mr. Bishop describes in detail how he searched for and found the Meeting45 document by navigating the 3GPP FTP website. Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 54–63. Based on this process, Mr. Bishop testifies that “by December 3, 2004, an interested POSITA using reasonable diligence could have located Meeting45 on the 3GPP website, downloaded the reference without providing any credentials, and disseminated the reference to others without restriction.” Id. ¶ 64. We have reviewed the relevant portions of Mr. Bishop’s Declaration and are persuaded that his testimony sufficiently demonstrates that Meeting45 was publicly available and accessible prior to March 31, 2005 (the earliest priority date to which the ’625 patent is entitled). See id. ¶¶ 54– 63; see also id. ¶¶ 55–57 (testimony as to availability and accessibility of attachment distributed via email and stored on an email list archive).” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 7,551,625 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,551,625 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00300 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’570 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch and/or proximity sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46). Patent Owner does not identify a proposed level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’570 patent or identify any specific shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. Pet. 5. This assessment is consistent with the ’570 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying such standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). The parties do not identify any claim terms for construction. Pet. 15; see generally Prelim. Resp. Thus, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not provide any express constructions, and we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,952,570 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Digital Services, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 1, 2018 · IPR2017-00948 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 18–22, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 9–17, 23, and 24 are not unpatentable; substitute claims 26–28 are denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The “verify” limitation of claim 1 expressly recites a check based “at least in part on a device identity.” The specification describes such a check as occurring at steps 15 and 16, not step 13. Steps 15 and 16 check whether the device identity is on record and, in response to that check, allow a digital product to be used on a device (steps 17, 18) or start a process to authorize the device. Id. at 5:1–9, 5:13–18. Although steps 15 and 16 are not expressly described as a verification of validity, steps 15 and 16, not step 13, logically track and most closely align with the language of claim 1’s “verify” and “in response to” limitations. Thus, the specification supports Petitioner’s view that the “verify” limitation can encompass checking whether unique device information is reflected in a database as authorized for a license.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“claim 1 is limiting, with Patent Owner arguing that it is and Petitioner arguing that it is not. Id. at 12–13. Patent Owner now argues that “[t]he preambles [of claims 1 and 22] expressly state that the claimed system and method are both directed to ‘adjusting’ the license in terms of its allowed copy count, which the preambles expressly define.” PO Resp. 9. We explained in the Institution Decision, however, that even if the preamble is limiting (e.g., by virtue of it providing antecedent basis (“at least one allowed copy count”) for “set the allowed copy count”), the language “[a] system for adjusting a license for a digital product over time” constitutes a 2 The preamble of claim 25 is not similar to that of claims 1 and 22, and Patent Owner does not propose an “adjusting” limitation for the language “in response to the device identity not being on the record, set the allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first time period after an initial authorization of the digital product,” as recited in claim 25. statement of intended purpose and does not purport to modify any particular claim language, such as “set the allowed copy count.” Dec. 13–14. Patent Owner argues that our preliminary construction would vitiate the purpose of the preamble language and that, instead, “the claim limitations must be understood in light of the ‘adjusting’ context introduced in the preamble.” PO Resp. 9. However, “the mere fact that a structural term in the preamble is part of the claim does not mean that the preamble’s statement of purpose or other description is also part of the claim.” Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Rather, the Federal Circuit has held that “a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Thus, an intended purpose set forth in a claim preamble and the context that purpose might provide, without more, are not limiting. Moreover, as Petitioner points out, “the claimed invention could be used to adjust an allowed device limit, at least to a higher limit, thereby satisfying the intended purpose of the invention.” Reply 4.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“On the complete record, we find that DeMello’s authentication, which checks a Passport ID and machine ID against stored records to authenticate a device, discloses executable code for the processor to “verify that a license data associated with the digital product is valid based at least in part on a device identity generated by sampling physical parameters of the given device,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 22.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“The Federal Circuit has cautioned that “references to ‘common sense’—whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That is not the case here. As explained above, both the ’960 patent and DeMello describe precise numbers of days as arbitrary and that their respective inventions contemplate other numbers. We find that it would have been reasonable for the skilled artisan to have selected six days, as recited in claim 6, in light of DeMello’s disclosure.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,566,960 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Bilski · Berkheimer · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,566,960 - Wangs Alliance Corporation D/B/A Wac Lighting Co. v. Philips Lighting North America CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 15, 2017 · IPR2016-01455 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the challenged claims were entitled to the May 9, 2002 priority date, making Schie unavailable as prior art to every asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“that the ’399 patent and ’079 provisional satisfy the written description requirement showing that the inventors possessed the conventional MR16 socket claimed in the ’679 patent. In this case, the ’079 provisional and ’399 patent disclose the general types of connectors and housing using terms a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand include the general types of lighting of which the MR16 is just one variant. See Ex. 2001, 7.24 (discussing “standard MR16 lamps” using “a 2-pin or turn-and-lock base”); Prelim. Resp. 6 n.6 (providing citations for MR16 bulbs as being well known and conventional). The general housing disclosures in the ’399 patent and ’079 provisional provide sufficient detail necessary to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the scope of the claims include non-screw type bases such as halogen and pin-type bases and connectors. See also Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[I]n some cases, broad or generic disclosures can adequately describe particular constituent species.”); Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A specification may . . . contain a written description of a broadly claimed invention without describing all species that [the] claim encompasses.” (alteration in original)); Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (noting that level of detail required to establish possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date “varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology”). The disclosure of the type of bulb housing, e.g. halogen, and type of connectors, e.g. pin-type, is adequate written description support for the particular type of housing claimed in the ’679 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the foregoing, we find that the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’679 patent is the date of the ’079 provisional, May 9, 2002, as both the ’399 patent and the ’079 provisional provide adequate written description support for the “conventional MR16 socket limitation” of the challenged claims. 2. Schie (Ex. 1003) as Prior Art to the ’679 Patent Given our finding above that the priority date of ’679 patent is May 9, 2002, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Schie, with an earliest available priority date of August 22, 2002 (Pet. 24–39; Prelim. Resp. 1–2), is prior art to the ’679 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Because each of Petitioner’s grounds for challenging the ’679 patent relies on Schie (Pet. 3– 4, 41–67), we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1, 3–6, 11, 17–19, 26, 38, and 43–45 of the ’679 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“2. Schie (Ex. 1003) as Prior Art to the ’679 Patent Given our finding above that the priority date of ’679 patent is May 9, 2002, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Schie, with an earliest available priority date of August 22, 2002 (Pet. 24–39; Prelim. Resp. 1–2), is prior art to the ’679 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Because each of Petitioner’s grounds for challenging the ’679 patent relies on Schie (Pet. 3– 4, 41–67), we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1, 3–6, 11, 17–19, 26, 38, and 43–45 of the ’679 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 7,358,679 - Apple Inc. v. Tracbeam, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 12, 2016 · IPR2015-01700 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Apple had not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 32, 33, 35–39, and 42 were obvious over PCT ’307 …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“LLC, filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“1. Whether the ’153 Patent is Entitled to the Filing Date of the ’367 Application Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are not entitled to priority because “they lack written description support.” Pet. 33. In particular, Petitioner contends that PCT ’892, published as PCT ’307, “does not contain any disclosure whatsoever of a GPS handset.” Id. at 36. Patent Owner points out correctly that the challenged claims do not recite expressly “GPS handset.” Prelim. Resp. 8. However, even assuming that the claims encompass a GPS handset, we are not persuaded, based on the arguments and evidence presented, that PCT ’307 fails to disclose a GPS handset. Petitioner asserts that the parent application to which the priority claim is made was published as PCT ’307 (Ex. 1003). Pet. 2–3. PCT ’307 provides more than 200 pages of textual description and more than 50 pages of drawings. See, generally, Ex. 1003. We note that PCT ’307 includes a similar definition section to that in the ’153 Patent Specification. Id. at 11. 3 We also note that PCT ’307 provides a non-exclusive list of wireless technologies that the mobile stations may use to communicate with any of “infrastructure base stations 122,” “mobile base stations(s) 148,” and “LBS [location base stations] 152.” Id. at 26. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 13–14), PCT ’307 discloses that the “mobile location unit” in a mobile base station may be similar to that in a mobile unit “For example . . . the electronics of the 3 Citations are to the page numbers of the PCT ‘307, not to the page numbering provided in the footer. mobile location unit may be little more than an onboard MS 140.” Ex. 1003, 102. This is consistent with the definitions section, which indicates that the term “mobile station” (“MS”) is synonymous with “location unit.” Id. at 11(explaining in definition 3.2 that “in some contexts herein instead or in addition to MS, the following terms are also used . . . ‘location unit’ (LU). In general these terms may be considered synonymous.”). PCT ’307 further discloses that a GPS receiver may be incorporated into that “mobile location unit”—which may be “little more than an onboard MS 140.” Id. (“In an enhanced version of the mobile location unit, a GPS receiver may also be incorporated so that the location of the mobile location unit may be determined.”). Therefore, in light of these disclosures and the arguments before us, we determine that even if the claims require a GPS handset as Petitioner asserts, the evidence considered in its entirety supports the conclusion that the inventor had possession of the invention as of the PCT ’892 filing date.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“we are not persuaded, based on the arguments and evidence presented, that PCT ’307 fails to disclose a GPS handset. Petitioner asserts that the parent application to which the priority claim is made was published as PCT ’307 (Ex. 1003). Pet. 2–3. PCT ’307 provides more than 200 pages of textual description and more than 50 pages of drawings. See, generally, Ex. 1003. We note that PCT ’307 includes a similar definition section to that in the ’153 Patent Specification. Id. at 11. 3 We also note that PCT ’307 provides a non-exclusive list of wireless technologies that the mobile stations may use to communicate with any of “infrastructure base stations 122,” “mobile base stations(s) 148,” and “LBS [location base stations] 152.” Id. at 26. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 13–14), PCT ’307 discloses that the “mobile location unit” in a mobile base station may be similar to that in a mobile unit “For example . . . the electronics of the 3 Citations are to the page numbers of the PCT ‘307, not to the page numbering provided in the footer. mobile location unit may be little more than an onboard MS 140.” Ex. 1003, 102. This is consistent with the definitions section, which indicates that the term “mobile station” (“MS”) is synonymous with “location unit.” Id. at 11(explaining in definition 3.2 that “in some contexts herein instead or in addition to MS, the following terms are also used . . . ‘location unit’ (LU). In general these terms may be considered synonymous.”). PCT ’307 further discloses that a GPS receiver may be incorporated into that “mobile location unit”—which may be “little more than an onboard MS 140.” Id. (“In an enhanced version of the mobile location unit, a GPS receiver may also be incorporated so that the location of the mobile location unit may be determined.”). Therefore, in light of these disclosures and the arguments before us, we determine that even if the claims require a GPS handset as Petitioner asserts, the evidence considered in its entirety supports the conclusion that the inventor had possession of the invention as of the PCT ’892 filing date.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“GPS receiver in a mobile base station 152 [is] separate from the mobile station 140.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–38). Mr. Judge testifies that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure of GPS in the ’892 application as applying to use of GPS only in base stations, not GPS in mobile stations or handsets.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 37. Mr. Judge acknowledges that PCT ’307 describes (1) “use of a GPS receiver in a mobile base station” and (2) use of “the included GPS” to determine “the mobile station’s location.” Id. ¶ 35. Mr. Judge, however, testifies “if the inventors had contemplated and were in possession of GPS in a mobile station or handset, one of skill in the art would have expected them to have similarly included such disclosure in the application as was included for GPS in the mobile base station.” Id. ¶ 37. We are not persuaded by Mr. Judge’s testimony, which is conclusory and does not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). As a result, we give little weight to Mr. Judge’s testimony regarding, for example, the expectation of one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of PCT ’307 considered in its entirety. As Patent Owner points out, Mr. Judge and the Petition also do not consider sufficiently the “definitions” section of PCT ’307, which we are persuaded is highly relevant to understanding what PCT ’307 discloses. Prelim. Resp. 15.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,032,153 - Apple Inc. v. Tracbeam, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 12, 2016 · IPR2015-01694 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6, 13–19, 24, 25, 28, 31–33, 47, 50, 54, 55, 60–62, 65–67, 69, 72, 74, 76, and 80 were obvious over …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Patent Owner, TracBeam, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. Analysis For the purposes of this Decision, we are not persuaded that any of the terms identified by Petitioner requires express construction, because even if we were to adopt Petitioner’s proffered positions on claim construction, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that it is reasonably likely to succeed in showing that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See 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 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“definition 3.2 that “in some contexts herein instead or in addition to MS, the following terms are also used . . . ‘location unit’ (LU). In general these terms may be considered synonymous.”). PCT ’307 further discloses that a GPS receiver may be incorporated into that “mobile location unit”—which may be “little more than an onboard MS 140.” Id. (“In an enhanced version of the mobile location unit, a GPS receiver may also be incorporated so that the location of the mobile location unit may be determined.”). Therefore, in light of these disclosures and the arguments before us, we determine that even if the claims require a GPS handset as Petitioner asserts, the evidence considered in its entirety supports the conclusion that the inventor had possession of the invention as of the PCT ’892 filing date.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“definition 3.2 that “in some contexts herein instead or in addition to MS, the following terms are also used . . . ‘location unit’ (LU). In general these terms may be considered synonymous.”). PCT ’307 further discloses that a GPS receiver may be incorporated into that “mobile location unit”—which may be “little more than an onboard MS 140.” Id. (“In an enhanced version of the mobile location unit, a GPS receiver may also be incorporated so that the location of the mobile location unit may be determined.”). Therefore, in light of these disclosures and the arguments before us, we determine that even if the claims require a GPS handset as Petitioner asserts, the evidence considered in its entirety supports the conclusion that the inventor had possession of the invention as of the PCT ’892 filing date.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 7,298,327 - J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Nat’L Ass’N et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 12, 2016 · CBM2014-00157 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 13–21, 24–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 36–39 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Real Party-in-Interest Patent Owner argues, as it did in its Preliminary Response, that the Petition does not identify all real parties-in-interest because the Petition does not identify IBM as a real party-in-interest. PO Resp. 63–65; Prelim. Resp. 45–47; see 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). We discern no difference between Patent Owner’s arguments in the Preliminary Response and those in the Response. Compare PO Resp. 63–65, with Prelim. Resp. 45–47. Therefore, we incorporate our previous analysis (Inst. Dec. 8), and determine that Patent Owner has not come forward with sufficient evidence to call into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“E. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibit 2011 as irrelevant, lacking foundation, and as hearsay under Federal rules of Evidence 401, 402, 602, and 802. Paper 29, 3–4. We do not rely on Exhibit 2011. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 34
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed construction for the term “access mechanism” is “hardware and/or software for controlling access to data.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002, 8; Ex. 1003, 6; Ex. 1001, 10:1–4, 15:31–32); see Inst. Dec. 9. Petitioner’s claim construction for “access mechanism” is consistent with the ’409 Patent Specification, which discloses access mechanism 114 as including processing unit 154, ROM 156, RAM 158, I/O controller 165, non-volatile memory 160, hard disk 162, encryption hardware 168, and tamper detect mechanism 169. Ex. 1001, 15:41–59, 15:65–16:5, 17:1–3, Fig. 8. Therefore, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested construction of access mechanism as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Petitioner’s proposed construction for “internal rule built in the access mechanism” is a rule “integrated into the access mechanism.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 7; Ex. 1003, 5); see Inst. Dec. 9. Petitioner’s claim construction for “internal rule built in the access mechanism” is consistent with the ’409 Patent Specification which discloses “the access mechanism may be supplied with a set of rules built-in,” “that can or cannot be overruled by rules provided with packaged data.” Ex. 1001, 34:29–33; see also id. at 34:34–43. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested construction of internal rule built in the access mechanism as the broadest reasonable interpretation.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“and Alice analysis. The Federal Circuit has rejected similar arguments. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (“We do not agree . . . that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete.”). Ultramercial, like Patent Owner, argued its claims were not directed to the type of abstract idea at issue in Alice that was “routine,” “long prevalent,” or “conventional,” but were directed to a specific method that was previously unknown and never employed before. Id. at 714. The court rejected Ultramercial’s argument and characterized it as follows: In other words, Ultramercial argues that the Supreme Court directs us to use a type of 103 analysis when assessing patentability so as to avoid letting § 101 “swallow all of patent law.” Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354. According to Ultramercial, abstract ideas remain patent-eligible under § 101 as long as they are new ideas, not previously well known, and not routine activity. Id. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea and therefore is patent-ineligible under § 101. Petitioner asserts dependent claims 2–5 and independent claims 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38 are drawn to the same abstract idea as claim 1. Pet. 42–45, 55–56, 58–61, 62– 64. Patent Owner acknowledges that claim 1 is representative of the independent claims (PO Resp. 37), and does not address separately independent claims 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38, and dependent claims 2–5. Accordingly, based on the record before us and for the same reasons as claim 1, we are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2– 5, 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38, each as a whole, are directed an abstract idea under § 101, and therefore directed to patent- ineligible subject matter under § 101. b. Step Two – Elements or Combination of Elements Sufficient to Ensure the” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,314,409 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 6,314,409 - Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. Mymedicalrecords, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2015 · CBM2015-00022 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 8–12 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter; the Board did not reach the anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“Second, we consider the challenged claims as an ordered combination. Id. at 2359. On this record, when viewed as a whole, the challenged claims 8–12 simply recite the concept of user management performed by a generic computer. The challenged claims, for example, do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they improve another technology or technical field. Petitioner additionally relies on the Declaration of Dr. Bysinger (Pet. 20–28), who testifies that the recited elements including “server,” “storing files . . . in a computer readable storage medium,” and “user interface on a computing device” were well-known conventional concepts in 2005. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32. Dr. Bysinger additionally states “the abstract idea of privately accessing and managing patient medical records . . . [has] existed since at least the promulgation of HIPAA.” Id. ¶ 33. We credit Dr. Bysinger’s statements because they are consistent with the challenged claims. Challenged dependent claims 9–12 add nothing that alters the above analysis under § 101. Claims 9, 10, 11, and 12 recite additional limitations, such as wherein the access information comprises a password, receiving files from a second provider, wherein the files comprise image format files including wills and powers of attorney, respectively. Based on the present record, these comprise either generic limitations, such as using a password for access or sending a file in a known image format, or they relate to organizing human activities, such as user management of legal and financial documents, in addition to health records. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8–12 of the ’466 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Petitioner asserts that claims 8–12 of the ’466 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they are directed to the abstract concept of allowing individuals to manage and access their health records and other medical or legal files privately. Pet. 19. We agree with Petitioner that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea: privately managing files by the user. The preamble and all claim limitations of the challenged claims support this view of the claims, and the ’466 Patent consistently describes the invention as allowing an individual to control access to their medical records. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:21–23. Management or control by the user or patient rather than by the health care provider is a method of organizing a human activity. On this record, the concept is an abstract idea, just like the basic hedging concept at issue in Bilski and the abstract idea of intermediated settlement in Alice.3” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“We conclude that receiving and sending data is a routine and conventional computer function. As explained in Alice, “use of a computer to obtain data . . . and issue automated instructions . . . are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional actitiv[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2359; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). Restricting access by password also is routine and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 712–13, 717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that representative claim 1 is patent ineligible although it recites “a fourth step of restricting general public access.”). Similarly, providing a user interface is an insignificant activity. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (determining that claim 1 is patent ineligible although it recites a “claim folder,” which “manages claim information . . . by providing a structured and easy to use interface.”). Claim 8 includes additional recitations relating to how data is stored and managed on the server. We determine that these limitations recite generic functions performed by a generic server and computing device. Storing files is a basic computer function. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Using a computer to create and maintain ‘shadow’ accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping—one of the most basic functions of a computer.”). Additionally, regarding the recitation in challenged claim 8 of “wherein the files are maintained on the server independently from any files maintained by the health care provider” (Ex. 1001, 17:18–19 (emphasis added)), we note the representative claim in Alice had a similar recitation. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352. In particular, in Alice, the representative claim included the following:” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner additionally relies on the Declaration of Dr. Bysinger (Pet. 20–28), who testifies that the recited elements including “server,” “storing files . . . in a computer readable storage medium,” and “user interface on a computing device” were well-known conventional concepts in 2005. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 30–32. Dr. Bysinger additionally states “the abstract idea of privately accessing and managing patient medical records . . . [has] existed since at least the promulgation of HIPAA.” Id. ¶ 33. We credit Dr. Bysinger’s statements because they are consistent with the challenged claims.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 8,301,466 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · BilskiPatents in suitUS 8,301,466
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.