- Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · PGR2015-00018 · APJ Richard E Rice · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8, and 10–14 are unpatentable as indefinite under § 112(b); the Board did not reach the § 103(a) grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 10–13; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 10–13). Patent Owner responds that “the Board should limit Petitioner’s overly broad definition of a POSA from having an associate’s degree in any science or engineering to having an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 12. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed definition should be limited because the inclusion of persons with an associate’s degree in any science or engineering fails to take into account the scope of the relevant art, which indisputably utilizes mechanical engineering principles.” Id. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“1. “elastic fastener” In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the claim term “elastic fastener” is an elastic element for attaching things together. Inst. Dec. 7–8. As neither party proposes any change to our interpretation, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary, we maintain that interpretation.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“We determine that the test for indefiniteness that is applied in patent examination and reexamination matters, approved in Packard, should be applied in this post-grant review AIA proceeding, rather than the Nautilus requirement. The different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTO and the courts stem from the distinct roles that the PTO and the courts play in the patent system.12 In AIA proceedings, as in patent examination and reexamination matters, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, coupled with an opportunity to amend the claims, is an approach that is fair to the patent holder and protects the public. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145–46; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312–14. This approach serves to ensure precision in patent claims, thereby helping the public to understand the limits of the claims and keeping the rights afforded by patents within their legitimate scope. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–45; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. Accordingly, among the reasons supporting application of the Packard-approved indefiniteness test in this AIA proceeding are those recognized by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as supporting use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes review AIA proceedings. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2143–2146. Of these, the most important is the opportunity to amend the claims to correct any ambiguity. See id. at 2145 (“The patent holder may, at least once in the process, make a motion to do just what he would do in the examination process, namely, necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear.” 12 See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1325 (Plager, J., concurring) (stating that “unlike courts which have a full prosecution record to consider, the prosecution record before the USPTO is in development and not fixed during examination”). amend or narrow the claim.”) (citation omitted); 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. An applicant’s ability to clarify claim language through amendment was a significant reason why the Federal Circuit in Packard approved of the indefiniteness test recited in the MPEP (i.e., a “claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313–14.” slip op. at 18
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“III. MOTIONS TO EXCUDE In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 57), Patent Owner seeks to exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 and 1032. Paper 57, 1–3. We deny Patent Owner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits in reaching our decision in this case. In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 59), Petitioner seeks to exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2016–2018, 2020 (¶ 84), 2024, 2025 (¶ 39), 2026 (¶ 39), 2027–2070, 2073, 2074, 2078, and 2085. Paper 59, 1–8. We deny Petitioner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits and paragraphs in reaching our decision in this case.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,051,066 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,051,066 - Inguran, LLC D/B/A Sexing Technologies v. Premium Genetics (UK) Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · PGR2015-00017 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Durack, Mueth, and Frontin-Rollet.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“On September 16, 2016, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer for claims 2–14 of the ’395 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 2007. Therefore, only claim 1 (“the remaining challenged claim”) is at issue.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“1. “Channel” For purposes of the Institution Decision, the Board construed “channel” as “a long gutter, groove, or furrow.” Dec. Inst. 6–7. Patent Owner relies on testimony by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Vacca, to assert that “channel” should be construed as “a hollow member for conveying fluids.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1002, 153; Ex. 2006, 17:17–18:12). In response, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner provides no support for its contention that a channel must convey and not collect. See Pet. Reply 17. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that a “channel” must convey fluid. At deposition, Dr. Vacca explained, “a hollow member for conveying fluids” “is a definition that I have supplied . . . as one of the definitions of channel that I have . . . provided here.” Ex. 2006, 17:22–18:4. Although Patent Owner provides testimony regarding one definition for “channel,” Patent Owner does not provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that “a hollow member for conveying fluids” is the broadest reasonable interpretation of “channel.” We maintain the construction of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “channel” as “a long gutter, groove, or furrow,” (see Dec. Inst. 6) which encompasses within its scope “a hollow member for conveying fluids.”” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “said plurality of buffer channels which are disposed on either side of said first input channel” discussed above in Section II.A.2, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Durack discloses this claim limitation based on radial bores 173 and 183 disposed on one side of conduit 157 (i.e., the exterior circumferential bounding surface of conduit 157). See Ex. 1005, Fig. 5.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In light of Patent Owner’s position that it met its burden of production in the Preliminary Response, we return to the positions advanced by the parties. As discussed briefly above, Petitioner asserted that the at least one channel limitation recited in claim 1 was not disclosed in the manner required by § 112(a) in any of the patent applications filed before March 16, 2013 (i.e., the ’969 Application and the ’957 Application). See Pet. 12–17. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, argued that there was adequate written description support for the at least one channel limitation of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 8–13 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 13:21–23; Ex. 1004, 11:66–12:4, 16:22–25). Patent Owner, however, does not address the remaining limitations of claim 1 and whether the prior applications disclose those remaining limitations in the manner required by § 112(a). See PO Resp. 3–6; Prelim. Resp. 7–13. Patent Owner, at oral argument, acknowledged that just one limitation of claim 1 was addressed in the Preliminary Response because it was the only limitation disputed by Petitioner. See Tr. 24:16–25:2. Although Petitioner arguments addressing standing for post-grant review only disputed written description support for the at least one channel limitation of claim 1, we are not aware of any obligation on the part of Petitioner to address whether each and every limitation of claim 1 was disclosed in the manner required by § 112(a). In contrast, in order for Patent Owner to show entitlement to an earlier effective filing date, Patent Owner must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, possession of the invention now claimed by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572; VasCath, 935 F.2d at 1563–64. Patent Owner’s arguments addressing only the at least one channel limitation of claim 1 (see PO Resp. 3–6; Prelim. Resp. 7–13) are insufficient to meet Patent Owner’s burden of coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the invention, with all its claimed limitations, as of the September 3, 2004 filing date. For all of the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the ’395 Patent is entitled to an earlier effective filing date of September 3, 2004. Thus, Mueth and Frontin-Rollet remain prior art to the ’395 Patent.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,933,395 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,933,395 - Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Ltd. / Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Monosol RX, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2016 · IPR2016-01112 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner correctly notes that Petitioner does not rely on its proposed claim construction in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 7. Nor does Petitioner provide any discussion supporting its position that the construction that it proposes represents the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent, other than asserting that it is the same construction that was proffered in a district court proceeding. For purposes of this decision, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrases apply. Id. at 7. In any event, this Decision does not turn on the claim phrases for which Petitioner has proposed a construction.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“particular, Petitioner has not explained adequately why a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Chen and Shiraldi. As discussed, supra, Chen describes using a mixture of two or more types of the same hydrocolloid that differ only in molecular weights and Shiraldi describes selecting and blending various polymers. Petitioner has not shown that a person of skill in the art would have understood that Shiraldi teaches or suggests selecting various polymers based upon high and low molecular weights. Nor has Petitioner established that Chen’s teaching to combine two or more types of the same hydrocolloid having differing molecular weights involved selecting a mixture of high and low molecular weights in the manner claimed. Indeed, neither reference provides a teaching or an example of such a practice. The example in Chen relied upon by Petitioner includes only a low molecular weight polyethylene oxide. Pet. 32 (referring to Chen Example 11 using a polyethylene oxide having an average molecular weight of 100,000 Da). In contrast to Chen, Schiraldi preferred and exemplified only high molecular weight polyethylene, in a range well beyond that recited in the claims for that component. That is, Schiraldi describes the ethylene oxide useful for its invention as having “a relatively high molecular weight” and preferring molecular weights above 3,000,000, whereas the claims recite a molecular weight range of 600,000 to 900,000. See Ex. 1004, 4:25–31. Moreover, Petitioner has not shown that the cited prior art, alone or in combination, taught or suggested a film comprising both low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxide in the respective ranges recited by the claims, or with the specific percentage of the low molecular weight component required. The portions of Dr. Mumper’s declaration cited by Petitioner do not provide any further support for Petitioner’s position. We note that Dr. Mumper does not explain why the polyethylene oxides molecular weights limitation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill over the combined teachings of the prior art. Instead, Dr. Mumper opines only that the skilled artisan “would be highly motivated to vary the amounts of the low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxide to achieve the desired effects including, but not limited to drug solubility, mucoadhesion and drug release rate.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. That opinion does not address a skilled artisan’s motivation, ability, or reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a film comprising the specific ranges and proportion of low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxides required by the claims. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d at 1074 (a showing of obviousness must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The portions of Dr. Mumper’s declaration cited by Petitioner do not provide any further support for Petitioner’s position. We note that Dr. Mumper does not explain why the polyethylene oxides molecular weights limitation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill over the combined teachings of the prior art. Instead, Dr. Mumper opines only that the skilled artisan “would be highly motivated to vary the amounts of the low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxide to achieve the desired effects including, but not limited to drug solubility, mucoadhesion and drug release rate.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. That opinion does not address a skilled artisan’s motivation, ability, or reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a film comprising the specific ranges and proportion of low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxides required by the claims. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d at 1074 (a showing of obviousness must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,017,150 - Telebrands Corp. v. Ragner Technology CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 23, 2016 · PGR2016-00026 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–25 were more likely than not unpatentable for indefiniteness or obviousness over Berardi and Gladfelter.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the ’057 patent “would have been a person having general knowledge about and experience with the manufacture and/or use of hoses and with fluid mechanics and materials science as they relate to hoses and how hoses work generally. The person of ordinary skill has at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1005). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertion. On these facts, we determine that Petitioner’s articulation of a person of ordinary skill in the art is credible.” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“’057 patent defines the following relevant claim terms: “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Petitioner does not dispute that these claim terms are defined expressly by the ’057 patent, nor does Petitioner indicate that these claim terms are indefinite. Next, each independent claim recites expressly that the “stretched length” is longer than the “extended length,” which we construed above as “the length the hose or those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure.” Finally, the term “maximum stretched length,” both by the use of the word “maximum” and the express definition set forth in the ’057 patent, indicates that it constitutes an upper bound for the term “stretched length.” Accordingly, through transitive analysis, we determine that the recited term “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Relative claim terminology is acceptable if one of ordinary skill would have understood what is claimed, in light of the Specification. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure,” and also determined that “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” When considered in the aggregate, we see that “extended length” is a length of a hose attributable to only fluid pressure, while “stretched length” is a length of a hose attributable to any force other than fluid pressure. Accordingly, a discussion of the prior art must acknowledge the interplay between the length of the hose, fluid pressure, and other forces, in order to meet the aforementioned claim limitation.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,182,057 - Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00132 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exception
“We are persuaded that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are drawn to the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example, payment. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “code to receive payment validation data . . . for said at least one selected item of multimedia content.” Independent claim 8 recites “code to control access to said selected content data item responsive to the payment validation data.” Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “code to retrieve supplementary data via said wireless interface and output said supplementary data to said user using said display.” Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and recites “said data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and audio/video player.” Furthermore, as discussed above, the ’772 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1201, 1:23–57. The patent specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of it by Internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’772 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:61–2:3. The ’772 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored content based on validation of payment. Id.” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive concept
“2. Inventive Concept “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). “This requires more than simply stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ or ‘apply it with a computer.’ Similarly, the prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1332 (citations omitted). Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components performing conventional functions is not enough. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Smartflash has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration. Smartflash has not cited any authority requiring an expert to recite or apply the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in order for the expert opinion to be accorded weight. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d), we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether Petitioner has established unpatentability. In doing so, it is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00132 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 14, 19, and 22 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that claims 14, 19, and 22 are drawn to the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example, payment. Specifically, independent claim 14 recites “code responsive to said user selection of said selected at least one item of multimedia content to transmit payment data relating to payment for said selected at least one item of multimedia content.” Independent claim 19 is similar and recites “code responsive to said user selection of said selected at least one content data item to transmit payment data relating to payment for said selected at least one content item.” Claim 22 depends from claim 19 and recites “wherein said data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and audio/video player.”” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“claims are either field of use limitations—limiting the ideas of payment and controlling access to content to payment for retrieving “data” and controlling access to content based on “payment data” and “payment validation data”— or generic computer implementations, which Petitioner argues is insufficient to bring the claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 25–31. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the challenged claims “recite no more than generic computer elements and functions that were well-known, routine, and conventional to a POSITA at the time of filing.” Reply 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 10–12. Petitioner persuades us that claims 14, 19, and 22 of the ’772 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than claims on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s rationale that the additional elements of claims 14, 19, and 22 are field of use limitations and/or are generic features of a computer that do not bring these claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 25–31; Reply 4–6.” slip op. at 14
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“We agree with Petitioner. As noted above, Smartflash, as movant, has the burden to show that these exhibits are inadmissible. Smartflash’s reference to FRE 703 in unavailing because while this rule does not establish the admissibility of the exhibits, it also does not speak to whether these exhibits are inadmissible. Because Mr. Wechselberger attests that he reviewed these exhibits in reaching the opinions he expressed in this case, Smartflash has not shown that they are irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibits 1324, 1329, 1330, 1333, and 1335. We grant the motion as to Exhibit 1305.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - Apple Inc. / Google, Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00132 · APJ Matthew R Clements · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Dr. Kelly’s Declaration. Because Exhibit 1019 relates to the underlying factual issues related to patent eligibility, we are not persuaded that it is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. It is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1019 in its entirety or any paragraph therein.” slip op. at 32
- BurdenUnpatentable
“ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content. For example, claim 35 recites “code responsive to the payment validation data to retrieve data from the data supplier and to write the retrieved data into the data carrier.” Claim 36 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data” and “code to access the stored data when access is permitted.”” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content. For example, claim 35 recites “code responsive to the payment validation data to retrieve data from the data supplier and to write the retrieved data into the data carrier.” Claim 36 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data” and “code to access the stored data when access is permitted.” As discussed above, the ’772 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1001, 1:23–57. The Specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The Specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of that data by internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’772 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:61–2:3. The ’772 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored data based on supplier-defined access rules and validation of payment. Id. at 1:59–2:19. Although the Specification refers to data piracy on the Internet, the challenged claims are not limited to the Internet. The underlying concept of the challenged claims, particularly when viewed in light of the Specification, is paying for and/or controlling access to content, as Petitioner contends. As discussed further below, this is a fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611.” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“recite only well-known, routine, and conventional computer components and activities, which is insufficient to establish an inventive concept.” Pet. Reply 5. We are persuaded that claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36 of the ’772 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt the rationale articulated in the Petition that the additional elements of the challenged claims are either field of use limitations and/or generic features of a computer that do not bring the challenged claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 50–76.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - Apple Inc. / Google, Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00133 · APJ Matthew R Clements · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content. For example, claim 35 recites “code responsive to the payment validation data to retrieve data from the data supplier and to write the retrieved data into the data carrier.” Claim 36 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data” and “code to access the stored data when access is permitted.”” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“recite only well-known, routine, and conventional computer components and activities, which is insufficient to establish an inventive concept.” Pet. Reply 5. We are persuaded that claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36 of the ’772 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt the rationale articulated in the Petition that the additional elements of the challenged claims are either field of use limitations and/or generic features of a computer that do not bring the challenged claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 50–76.” slip op. at 14
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Dr. Kelly’s Declaration. Because Exhibit 1019 relates to the underlying factual issues related to patent eligibility, we are not persuaded that it is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. It is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1019 in its entirety or any paragraph therein.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00131 · APJ Matthew R Clements · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 3–6, 8–14, 16–25, 27–30, and 32–41 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content. For example, claim 21 recites “code for storing and accessing the one or more use rules in the use rule memory.” Claim 35 recites “evaluating the use status data using the one or more use rules to determine whether access to the content data item is permitted” and “enabling access to the content data item responsive to a determination that access to the content data item is permitted.” As discussed above, the ’598 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1001, 1:20–55. The Specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The Specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of that data by internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’598 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:59–2:4. The ’598 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored data based on supplier-defined access rules and validation of payment. Id. at 1:59–2:15. Although the Specification refers to data piracy on the Internet, the challenged claims are not limited to the Internet. The underlying concept of the challenged claims, particularly when viewed in light of the Specification, is paying for and/or controlling access to content, as Petitioner contends. As discussed further below, this is a fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“2. Inventive Concept “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). “This requires more than simply stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ or ‘apply it with a computer.’ Similarly, the prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1332 (citations omitted). Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components performing conventional functions is not enough. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). Petitioner argues that “the [challenged c]laims’ ‘additional features’ recite only well-known, routine, and conventional computer components and activities, which is insufficient to establish an inventive concept.” Pet. Reply 6. We are persuaded that claims 3–6, 8–14, 16–25, 27–30, and 32–41 of the ’598 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt the rationale articulated in the Petition that the additional elements of the challenged claims are either field of use limitations and/or generic features of a computer that do not bring the challenged claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 53–73.” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Dr. Kelly’s Declaration. Because Exhibit 1019 relates to the underlying factual issues related to patent eligibility, we are not persuaded that it is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. It is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1019 in its entirety or any paragraph therein.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 8,061,598 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,061,598 - Google, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00130 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 22 is also indefinite under § 112.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content. For example, claim 17 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data.” Ex. 1001, 27:1–15. As discussed above, the ’221 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1001, 1:20–55. The Specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The Specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of it by internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’221 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:59–2:4. The ’221 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored data based on supplier-defined access rules and validation of payment. Id. at 1:59–2:15. Although the Specification refers to data piracy on the Internet, the challenged claims are not limited to the Internet. The underlying concept of the challenged claims, particularly when viewed in light of the Specification, is controlling access to content based upon payment as Petitioner contends. As discussed further below, this is a fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“recite only well-known, routine, and conventional computer components and activities, which is insufficient to establish an inventive concept.” Reply 6. Petitioner adds that “[t]he specification [of the ’221 patent] itself disclaims [the claimed hardware elements] as non-inventive.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:4–13, 11:28–29, 12:29–32, 13:35–38, 16:46–50, 18:7–17). We are persuaded that claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt the rationale articulated in the Petition that the additional elements of the challenged claims are generic features of a computer that do not bring the challenged claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 49–82; Reply 6–19; ’126 Pet. 25–31; ’126 Reply 8–12.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“Upon consideration of the entire record, we are persuaded sufficiently byPetitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know that the antecedent basis for “said use rules” refers back to the “use rules data” introduced in claim 17. Although lack of antecedent basis alone is insufficient to render a claim indefinite, here the lack of antecedent basis introduces ambiguity into the claim. It is unclear whether claim 22 should recite “use rules” or “said use rules data,” rather than “said use rules.” As indicated above, we have construed “use rules” and “use rules data” differently. Accordingly, we are persuaded that claim 22 is amenable to two plausible claim interpretations, and we determine that the phrase “said use rules” does not inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty and, therefore, is indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 2. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming Board’s conclusion, in context of ex parte appeal, that claims were indefinite “on grounds that they ‘contain[ ] words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.’”).” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Dr. Tygar’s Declaration. Because Exhibit 1002 relates to the underlying factual issues related to patent eligibility, we are not persuaded that it is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. It is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1002 in its entirety or any paragraph therein.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,118,221 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,118,221
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.