- Adb Safegate Sweden AB / Adb Safegate BV et al. v. Honeywell International Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 12, 2025 · PGR2023-00053 · APJ James P Calve · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 6–10, and 13–20 are also unpatentable over Berkmo, and claims 1–20 over Berkmo and Richman.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have “held at least a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a similar discipline, with at least two years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing, planning, or implementing sensor networks using LIDAR, radar and/or cameras and corresponding data analysis” and “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18– 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill as articulated above. Petitioner’s description appears to be consistent with the prior art cited and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’349 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We reject Patent Owner’s interpretation because it limits the claims to an exemplary embodiment that “can, for example, provide the remaining distance and the horizontal deviation with respect to the center line of a path” (Ex. 1001, 10:8–11), and it reads limitations of that embodiment into the claims. Absent a lexicographic definition or a disavowal, such claim interpretations are not permissible. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312, 1316 (claims are given their ordinary, customary meaning in the context of the entire patent and the specification absent a lexicographic definition or a disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’”) (citation omitted). Patent Owner has not asserted a definition or a disclaimer to support its interpretation. PO Resp. 16–17. The parties agree that “directional guidance” includes “navigational instructions” and “maneuvering guidance information.” PO Resp. 16 (“the claims make clear that this guidance refers to the navigational instructions to be provided to the pilot guiding the airplane”), 17 (a skilled artisan “reading the challenged claims in light of the specification would understand that ‘directional guidance’ refers to navigational instructions including the horizontal deviation with respect to the center line of a path”); Reply 21 (Berkmo teaches providing “pilot maneuvering guidance information . . . for aiding a pilot of the approaching aircraft towards [a] parking position”); Pet. 54 (Berkmo provides maneuvering guidance information). We interpret “directional guidance” as navigational instructions and maneuvering guidance information. This interpretation is consistent with the claims, which do not recite features of “directional guidance,” much less a horizontal deviation with respect to a center line as Patent Owner asserts.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the merging recites mental processes because the algorithms described in the specification (Ex. 1001, 8:50–9:10) can be performed as mental processes. Pet. 20–22; Reply 9–11; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–58; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351–52, 1353–54 (receiving time stamped synchronized phasor measurements at different points of an electric power grid and analyzing and updating the measurements in real time using limits, sensitivities, and rates of change of dynamic stability metrics derived from voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes recite mental processes); id. at 1354 (analyzing data by mental steps or mathematical algorithms is an abstract mental process). Merging data by transforming and converting it from one format to another is an abstract idea. See AI Visualize, Inc. v Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“But ‘converting information from one format to another . . . is an abstract idea.’” (citation omitted); creating virtual views in real time by “creating the requested frames of the requested views from the volume visualization dataset” created a virtual view from the existing volume visualization dataset as “abstract data manipulation”); Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the method receives, displays, converts, stores, and transmits digital video data using result-based functional language); FICEP Corp. v. Peddinghaus Corp., No. 2022-1590, 2023 WL 5346043, *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2023) (the focus of the advance is on automating the identification, extraction, and transfer of a 3D rendering of an object by a CAD design model including dimensions and intersection parameters without specifying how intersection parameter data was generated or used to create a design model and therefore encompasses a human deriving intersection parameters and adding this data to the design model for extraction); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”) (quoting Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978) (“If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”)); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (mathematical relationships include converting binary coded decimal numerals to pure binary numerals as did the claims in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972)); see also Tr. 22:24–25:23.” slip op. at 20
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“The ordered combination of elements recites no more than when the elements are considered individually and thus does not provide an inventive concept. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “[w]hen considered individually or in combination with the other claimed elements, the reliance on this merged data from a camera and LIDAR/RADAR sensor is itself an inventive concept because it was not conventional and improves the technology of aircraft tracking and guidance.” PO Resp. 49–50. Merging data from two different sensors is part of the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept that makes that abstract idea patent eligible. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291–92; Guidance at 56. “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91. “It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” Id. at 1290. Even if merging camera and LIDAR/RADAR sensor data is treated as an additional element, the description of the point cloud process and iterated point cloud algorithm indicates Patent Owner did not invent or improve the merging process. Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:40; MPEP § 2106.05(d)I.2. (a generic description indicates that elements are conventional enough that no further description is needed to satisfy § 112(a)); see AI Visualize, 97 F.4th at 1379 (converting data from one format to another is an abstract idea); Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App’x 900, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (encoding and decoding image data and converting data formats are abstract ideas). Dr. Campbell and Mr. Wilson testify that merging data is known for detecting and tracking objects and navigation. Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 41–51, 56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–65, 81–87; Ex. 1045, 20:6–23:18. A “data fusion process” is not claimed, much less one of any particular features. See PO Resp. 50. Nor do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of sensors. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–67, 83; iLife, 839 F. App’x at 538 (because sensors for measuring static and dynamic acceleration were known, and claim 1 did not recite unconventional means for processing that data, sensing and processing the static and dynamic acceleration information using generic components did not transform the nature of claim 1 into patent eligible subject matter).” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 11,538,349 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,538,349 - Hum Industrial Technology, Inc. v. Amsted Rail Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00539 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held original claims 1–18 and 20–22 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds, denied the revised motion to amend, and held substitute claims 23–43 ineligible and unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“f. Conclusion We determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“2. Motivation to combine a. Petitioner’s contentions Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of LeFebvre and Barone to monitor the condition of railcar wheels and bearings using sensors connected over a wireless mesh network and to analyze collected data to determine if a wheel bearing failure is imminent and issue an alert to the locomotive or central station. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1007, code (57), Abstr., ¶¶ 45, 86, 201–220; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–162). b. Patent Owner’s arguments Patent Owner does not contest these assertions regarding a motivation to combine LeFebvre and Barone. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. c. Conclusion We determine a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of” slip op. at 51
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“(4) Conclusion We determine that Patent Owner has demonstrated that the inventors” slip op. at 59
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“(4) Conclusion We determine that the above-described lack of clarity in the meaning” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS 9,981,673 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,981,673 - PTAB · Mar 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00053 · APJ James P Calve · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds because the petition showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that 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.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that 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.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a similar discipline, with at least two years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing, planning, or implementing sensor networks using LIDAR, radar and/or cameras and corresponding data analysis” and “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18– 23). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’349 patent and the prior art of record, and we adopt it for consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[n]o terms require construction to determine that claims 1–20 are invalid under §§ 101, 102, 103.” Pet. 9. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the construction of any term or phrase. On the present record, we determine that we do not need to construe any claim terms to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,538,349 - Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / MGM Resorts International et al. v. Gan (UK) LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00027 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Original claims 11–18, 21, and 22 and proposed substitute claims 23–39 were held unpatentable; the revised motion to amend was granted in part and otherwise denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“For reasons discussed below, we grant in-part Patent Owner’s RMTA and cancel original claims 1 and 3–10. We otherwise deny Patent Owner’s RMTA to enter revised substitute claims 23–31, which non-contingently amend original claims 1 and 3–10, and we deny Patent Owner’s RMTA to enter revised substitute claims 32–39, which contingently amend original claims 12–14, 16–18, 21, and 22.” slip op. at 3
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther
“V. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE Because our findings and determinations do not rely on the paragraphs of Dr. Shamos’ declaration that Petitioner’s Motion to Strike seeks to strike, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Strike as moot.” slip op. at 104
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Having reviewed the arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that original claims 11–18, 21, and 22 of the challenged claims of the ’296 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'IneligibleStep1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that revised substitute claims 23–39 are unpatentable. Specifically, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that revised substitute claims 23–39 are not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, and claims 23–39 are unpatentable under prior art asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as discussed below. See Opp. RMTA 4–6, 8–28.” slip op. at 3
Patent outcomesUS 8,821,296 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 8,821,296 - Metacluster LT, Uab v. Bright Data Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 23, 2023 · PGR2022-00052 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–27; the Board found it more likely than not that the claims are obvious over Mithyantha, with claim 19 also challenged over Mithyantha and RFC 2616.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’034 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field (or equivalent experience), and at least two years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems.” Pet. 13 (referencing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The district court considered the issue of whether a client device, for instance, should be construed in a role-based or structural manner, and the evaluation included whether a device could sometimes be operated as a client and at other times could operate as something else. Ex. 1018, 48–51. In support, the district pointed the patent disclosure that: Any network element in the system may be a dedicated device that assumes only a single role, and thus being only a client (using tunnels), a tunnel, a client (using agents/ peers), an agent, or a peer device. Alternatively or in addition, a network element may be capable of assuming two or more roles, either at different times or simultaneously, from the list of roles including a client (using tunnels), a tunnel, a client (using agents/peers), an agent, or a peer device. Alternatively or in addition, a device may be capable of assuming all of the above roles. Ex. 1018, 50 (quoting ’866 patent at 125:33–42, with identical disclosure in ’034 patent (Ex. 1001, 125:24–33)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“At this stage of the proceedings, we do not agree that Mithyantha’s second appliance 200’/200b cannot be considered the claimed “second client device” and its first appliance 200/200a cannot be considered the claimed “third server.” As discussed supra Section II.C, we have adopted the district court’s constructions of claim terms. More specifically, the district court determined, and we concur based on the present record, that “client device” is “a device that is operating in the role of a client by requesting services, functionalities, or resources from other devices” and a “first server” functions as “a server that is not the client device.” On this record, Petitioner has demonstrated that Mithyantha’s second appliance 200’/200b functions as the claimed “second client device,” as it operates as a client by requesting services, functionalities, or resources from other devices, that is, it transmits HTTP web requests over the network to a server. See Pet. 44– 45. Mithyantha also discloses that its first appliance 200/200a functions in a server role, with appliance 200/200a sending back responses to client 102a, that is, content from the web server, and it is a separate element from a client device. See id. at 41–42. Moreover, as discussed above, Petitioner’s assertions are consistent with the role-based nature of the elements as disclosed in the ’034 patent. Further, we do not find that Petitioner’s applications of the claim elements to Mithyantha are arbitrary because they are consistent with the district court’s claim construction of the respective claimed elements and the elements’ functions and roles, as discussed. Moreover, Mithyantha discloses that its appliances can provide different functions (see e.g. Ex. 1009, 5:31–33, 8:65–67, 9:8–21, 9:53–55; 23:58–64), and may be implemented in many forms. That is, the implementation of appliance 200 is generally described as being on any form of computing device such as “computing device 100,” and “computing device 100 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone.” See id. at 13:65– 142, 16:58–64. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s allegations regarding a required architecture. Patent Owner does not explain how these requirements are recited in the limitations of claims. Instead, at this juncture, it appears that the arguments are an attempt to impermissibly introduce limitations into the claim that are not recited. Similarly, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments on required anonymity because this requirement is not recited in the claims.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,272,034 - Hulu, LLC v. Sito Mobile R&D IP, LLC And Sito Mobile, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · CBM2020-00028 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 39–41, 45–56, 68, and 98–126 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea implemented with generic computer components.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“various HTTP-related technologies, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Patent Owner’s declarant, Michael Sprenger, Ph.D., similarly testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or computer engineering (or a related academic field), and at least two additional years of work experience in the design and development of distributed network systems and/or multimedia streaming.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 33; PO Resp. 4−5. Dr. Sprenger also testifies that, alternatively, such an artisan would have had “at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of distributed network systems and/or multimedia streaming.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 33; PO Resp. 4−5. Neither party points out any meaningful difference between the parties’ assessments. Based on the evidence of record, we apply Patent Owner’s assessment on the level of ordinary skill in the art, as Dr. Sprenger provides an alternative to a college degree.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s implicit claim construction improperly imports extraneous limitations into the claims—namely, excluding the entirety of the “requested media” or requiring that the “requested media” be broken up into portions. It is well-settled that if a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “at least one portion of the requested media” as used in the ’887 patent does not support Patent Owner’s implicit construction. In the context of the ’887 patent, the plain 4 For example, other variations include “at least a portion of the requested media” recited in claim 1 and “the at least the portion of the requested media” recited in claim 2. 10 and ordinary meaning of the term encompasses one or more portions of the “requested media,” as well as the entirety of the “requested media.” For example, the portions of the Specification relied upon by Patent Owner disclose that the viewer requests a media clip and receives the entirety of the requested media clip, not one portion at a time. Ex. 1001, 13:49−14:2. Patent Owner’s implicit construction ignores the modifiers “at least” and “requested” recited in the term.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner submits that the District Court construed the claim term “settlement record” as “billable event record to be used for revenue 13 settlement.” PO Resp. 29−30; Ex. 2008, 2. This construction is consistent with the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:18−20 (“to generate the settlement rules that define who will be billed or credited”), 12:17−19 (“RTSMS 106 processes the logs, the billing data, and the state model data and creates a message sequence detail record (MSDR).”), 12:25−26 (“The MSDR represents a billable event record that will be used for revenue settlement purposes.”), 12:56−62. As such, we adopt the District Court’s claim construction, construing “settlement record” as “billable event record to be used for revenue settlement.”” slip op. at 13
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Upon review of this entire trial record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find that the challenged claims recite a concept that falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas—certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The abstract idea here is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Federal Circuit. Notably, each challenged claim recites a method in which a “computing device” generates a “communication” based on the characteristics of the user in response to a request for media to be streamed. The Federal Circuit has held that “the concept of delivering user-selected media content to portable devices is an abstract idea.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit also has held that claims related to “customizing information based on (1) information known about the user and (2) [specific] data” are directed to abstract ideas. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369−70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that “[a]n advertisement taking into account the time of day and tailoring the information presented to the user based on that information is another ‘fundamental . . . practice long prevalent in our system’” (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. 219)); see also British Telecommunications PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, 813 F. App’x 584, 587 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the concept of “providing lists of 30 location-specific information sources to users based on their location” was an abstract idea). In addition, we find that the claim limitations involving a “revenue sharing rule” and “producing a settlement record” that reflects the revenue sharing do not remove the challenged claims from the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Pet. 38−40. Notably, recording revenue sharing constitutes a practice of organizing human activity, which is rooted in assessing sales and economic interactions—a fundamental economic practice. The Supreme Court has held in Alice that “a method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk” is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce” and that “the concept of intermediated settlement . . . [is] squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 219−22.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,825,887 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,825,887 - Google LLC v. Videoshare LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2021 · CBM2020-00027 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review for claims 1–7 because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent; it did not reach the § 101 challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“E. Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not eligible subject matter for a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 77. According to Petitioner, “[t]he claims recite the abstract idea of including advertising with appropriately formatted video.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner has failed to show that the claims recite ineligible subject matter. Prelim. Resp. 64. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he ’341 Patent claims recite specific steps that improve the functioning of a video server providing shared video files.” Id. Because we have determined that the ’341 patent does not qualify for covered business method patent review, we do not address whether the claims recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,362,341 - Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00047 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1, 2-4, 11-13, 16-17, and 20-22.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 8,244,586 - Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00046 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1–8, 10, 13–16, 24, 27–29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, and 41–47.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect. slip op. at 6
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 7,822,639 - HP Inc. / SAP America, Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 28, 2016 · CBM2016-00020 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 15 and 20–34 were more likely than not unpatentable under § 101 or any of the three § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the reasons that follow, Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“We believe the same is true in this matter. Petitioner fails to identify specific documentary evidence indicating that the claim element “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’275 patent. At best, Petitioner provides a string cite to nine different documents, without pointing to any particular page or disclosure in any of those documents, as allegedly illustrating an “industry-wide push to Web-enable,” and provides a string cite to eight different paragraphs of testimony from Dr. Greenspun, as allegedly indicating why a skilled artisan “would have seen a strong need to provide Web-enabled system administration capabilities for the R/3 system described in R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” See Pet. 63–64 (citing Exs. 1017– 1021, 1023, 1026, 1027, 1030; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 58–60, 85–86, 110–112). Petitioner, however, fails to identify with specificity which documentary evidence indicates that it would have been common knowledge to provide a Web interface for system administration of the system described by R/3 Online and the R/3 Book and, thus, that claim 15 would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan based on combining this alleged common knowledge with the system described by R/3 Online and R/3 Book. The Board, and Patent Owner, are left to speculate as to which particular evidence Petitioner is relying on. See Pet. 12, 42; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(4)–(5) (a petition must “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art” and identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”), 42.22(a)(2) (a petition must include a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”). In view of this deficiency, we determine that Petitioner fails to articulate sufficient reasoning to support its assertion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that independent claim 15, and claims 20–34 dependent therefrom, would have been obvious over R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner urges the Board to construe two claim phrases. First, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “end-to-end, business-to-business, e-commerce business automation software for automation business functions across multiple business domains” to mean “[s]oftware that, using a computer network, at least partially automates business functions relating to two or more businesses and from two or more business domains (such as products, payments, and financial performance).” Pet. 19. Second, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” to mean “producing a software configuration in which modules can be enabled or disabled by (1) changing the configuration parameters of a web server program or (2) using a Web browser to change configuration parameters of software running on a server.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner does not offer any proposed constructions of claim terms in its Preliminary Response. For the reasons explained below, in this case determining the scope of the terms proffered by Petitioner is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner has met the standard for institution of a covered business method patent review, and we decline to adopt the constructions sought by Petitioner. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“Claim 15 (the only claim substantively addressed by Petitioner), however, does not recite any “gathering” steps, and Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how the limitations of claim 15 are directed to the concept of “gathering” information. For example, claim 15 merely recites “providing . . . business automation software, “identifying multiple modules of the software,” and producing a “software configuration.” Additionally, claim 15 requires producing a “workscope/workflow structured display of complex database records,” which constitutes “an integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, the method of claim 15 does not expressly require that information be gathered across “multiple business domains.” Rather, claim 15 requires providing “business automation software” to produce a “structured display” of “records” pertaining to a “business transaction,” such that the display constitutes an “integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, even if Petitioner is correct that “gathering information from across a business and using the information to make decisions” by itself is an abstract idea, Petitioner’s analysis does not address sufficiently the specific language of claim 15 and explain why claim 15 is directed to that idea. See Pet. 27. Similarly, dependent claims 20–34 are not directed to “gathering information,” and Petitioner provides no analysis of the language of the dependent claims. In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish the first step of the Mayo framework; i.e., Petitioner fails to identify sufficiently an abstract idea to which claim 15 is directed.8 Petitioner combines its arguments under § 101 against dependent claims 20– 34 with its arguments against claim 15 and fails to provide any additional arguments for these dependent claims. See Pet. 25 (arguing that the “sixteen challenged claims of the ’275 patent are likewise unpatentable under §101”). Therefore, we similarly determine that Petitioner fails to establish the first step of the Mayo framework with respect to dependent claims 20–34. Based on the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish, based on the record presented, that claims 15 and 20–34 are more likely than not directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 8 We need not decide whether claim 15 is directed to a different abstract idea, and only determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that claim 15 is directed to the alleged abstract idea that Petitioner proposes in the Petition.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 6,343,275
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.