• Snap Inc. / Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01294 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held all challenged claims 1–25 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds and denied Patent Owner’s contingent motions to amend.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Snap proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’599 patent would have possessed “an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of content presentation and context-based systems/processes.” Snap Pet. 3 (citing Snap IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–32); Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 32. Snap further asserts that additional “education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that Snap’s proposed description of the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art aligned with the technology and claims of the ’599 patent. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7. For this proceeding, Patent Owner and Dr. Martin apply this level of skill in the art. Snap PO Resp. 11–12; Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 48–50. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the Decision on Institution, we adopt Snap’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Martin also provides consistent testimony on this issue. Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 81–82. Put simply, the Specification’s disclosure is that the set of rules for multiple content packages includes an expected response, and actions are then performed based on whether an expected response is or is not provided. Moreover, as Dr. Almeroth testifies, neither the claims nor the Specification use the term “unexpected response”—rather the Specification only identifies an “expected response.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 42. Accordingly, the disclosures in Table 1 and the Specification support Dr. Almeroth’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “the claimed ‘determin[e/ing]’ limitation requires what it plainly recites: ‘determin[e/ing] whether the received response matches the expected response[]’. . . . [i]t does not require an unexpected response not known to the system.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 51.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “time,’ ‘type of location,’ and other contextual information to automatically determine whether users would like to undertake learning activities.” Twitter Pet. Reply 18 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 1005, 2 3, 5 (“A check . . . to see if the information from the database corresponds with the location sensor (i.e. a check on whether the learner is really keeping his/her schedule).”), Fig.1; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1025 ¶ 49; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85, 157–162, 238, 435, 451, 517; Twitter Pet. 20–21). Accordingly, the evidence of record support that Yau teaches that context triggers the display of a content piece, such as an exercise/test/quiz. Patent Owner also argues that Twitter asserts that PALLES’ content piece is “‘exercise[s],’ ‘test[s],’ and/or ‘MP Quiz[zes],’” but also contends that Yau’s “formal assessment” is the claimed content piece. Twitter PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that “Twitter points back to its limitation 12.1 PALLAS evidence for the purported ‘content piece’” and also does not mention Yau for limitation 12.5 and 12.6 and “only conclusorily states that ‘PALLAS in view of Yau renders obvious triggering an exercise/test/quiz.’” Id. Patent Owner’s arguments overlook Twitter’s assertion, with Dr. Turnbull’s supporting testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Yau’s formal assessments are “tests with answers for comparing against learner’s responses to assess knowledge/performance/skill (contrasting with ‘un-assessed’ exercises whose responses are unchecked).” Twitter Pet. 43; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶ 154. Further, Patent Owner overlooks Petitioner’s assertion that it is implementing PALLAS’s context-triggerbased content display using Yau’s teachings of displaying assessments/questions based on context. Twitter Pet. 43. Patent Owner also asserts that in the PALLAS-Yau combination, Twitter does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art in the manner Petitioner alleges. Twitter PO Resp. 42. Patent Owner argues that “PALLAS says nothing about forcing quizzes, tests, or exercises on its users without the users asking for such exercises,” and a person of skill would understand that the combined system still requires that a student select a learning activity and that PALLAS’s system should be unobtrusive because learners “may have small time slots to engage in learning.” Id. (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 168; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1004, 54). Patent Owner further contends that “Twitter’s conclusory, hindsight-driven statements” do not suffice and PALLAS teaches away from the modifications suggested by Twitter. Id. at 42–43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 144). Patent Owner argues that because a learner may not have time to complete a test, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to change PALLAS to trigger exercises/tests/quizzes based on location or time. Id. at 43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 142–144). The evidence of record does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 115

  • ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “2. Enlarging Scope of Claims Patent Owner asserts that it proposes narrowing limitations in direct response to the grounds of unpatentability involved in this proceeding. See, e.g., Snap Mot. 3–4. Facebook argues Patent Owner is “improperly attempting to enlarge the scope of the original claims.” Facebook Pet. Opp. 1. Facebook asserts, “[i]f ‘an expected response’ means one or more expected responses, therefore, determining whether the received response ‘matches the expected response’ means that the received response must match [all of] the one or more previously-recited expected responses in the content package.” Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). Facebook then argues “the term ‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response,’” because “an ‘expected response’ does not include any conceivable or possible response; it is a response that is expected.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis omitted). Twitter argues that “‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response’ because a ‘predefined response’ can include any possible response as long as that response has been somehow defined in advance.” Twitter Pet. Opp. 2. We consider the amendments in view of the claim as a whole. Although the term “one predefined response” may be broader than “an expected response,” we also consider the amended portion “wherein the received response is expected if the received response matches one or more of the at least one predefined response,” and “the received response is unexpected if the received response does not match any of the at least one predefined response.” Unless the response had been predefined within the content package, any “received response” could not be considered “expected” under the claims, and the additional clause requires a match of the response with the predefined response to be deemed “expected.” This equates to an equivalent scope to the original claim. This is consistent with Dr. Martin’s testimony, which we credit, that he is not aware of a situation where the substitute but not original claims are infringed because “[t]he substitute claims would only be satisfied when a ‘predefined response’ in the substitute claims is an ‘expected response’ in the original claims.” Facebook IPR, Ex. 2023 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 136

  Patent outcomesUS 8,489,599 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,489,599
• Autodesk, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 11, 2017 · CBM2016-00043 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 12–19 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 3, 8–11, and 20 are subject to adverse judgment after disclaimer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “B. Statutory Disclaimer During the pendency of this proceeding, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 2014. According to this disclaimer, Patent Owner disclaims claims 3, 8–11, and 20 of the ’820 patent. Id.; see also Resp. 1 (“Contemporaneously with the filing of this Response, Patent Owner is disclaiming claims 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 20 of the ’820 Patent.”). Our rules provide for entry of adverse judgment against a Patent Owner who disclaims “a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Although Patent Owner does not disclaim all the challenged claims, and although Patent Owner therefore has some claims remaining in this trial, we construe the disclaimer of claims 3, 8–11, and 20 as a request for the entry of adverse judgment solely with respect to those claims. We grant the request and enter adverse judgment with respect to claims 3, 8–11, and 20.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “1. Add-On Computer Software Code Both parties propose construing “add-on computer software code,” a term that appears in every challenged claim. Ex. 1001, 78:43–82:36. Petitioner argues that this term should be interpreted as a “set of computer code that cannot be run independently from a parent program.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner argues that the term should be interpreted as “set of computer code that is designed to run within a parent computer software application or code, particularly architectural CAD software (or another architectural, civil, industrial, or other software design tool), as an internal component.” Resp. 42–43. We agree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s construction is taken directly from the written description of the ’820 patent, which provides a reasonably clear, deliberate, and precise definition of the term. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; Ex. 1001, 61:42–51 (“The plug-in (add-on) computer software code is . . . .”). To the extent that Petitioner’s proposed construction seeks to limit add-on software code further by requiring that the software code be incapable of running independently from a parent program, as opposed merely to being designed to run within the parent program as an internal component, this further limitation is inconsistent with the lexicography undertaken by the patentee of the ’820 patent. Accordingly, we construe “add-on computer software code” as a “set of computer code that is designed to run within a parent computer software application or code, particularly architectural CAD software (or another architectural, civil, industrial, or other software design tool), as an internal component.”” slip op. at 6

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “As discussed above, the ’820 patent describes solving problems with the generation of cost estimates of construction projects, including that the process takes significant time and effort, that the estimates produced are difficult to revise, and that the estimates can be inaccurate, leading to cost overruns and difficulties obtaining construction loans. Ex. 1001, 1:15–62. The claims recite a computer readable medium or system for automating the process of generating a price schedule, which is used to develop the overall project cost estimate. Id. at 78:43–82:36. In so doing, the claims do not recite any “specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities,” such as the “self-referential table for a computer database” in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Instead, the claims of the ’820 patent “invoke[]” known aspects of computer technology, including “[a] non-transitory computer readable medium,” “a computer that includes a processor and a memory,” “an add-on computer software code,” “a software design tool,” and “a database,” “merely as a tool” for solving the problem of improving the known process of generating construction project cost estimates. Id.; Ex. 1001, 78:43–60. Accordingly, the claims of the ’820 patent are not like those considered in Enfish, where the claims were determined at the first step of the Alice framework not to be directed to abstract ideas because they were directed to “[a] specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities.” 822 F.3d at 1336. Instead, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’820 patent are focused “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea.’” Id. The ’820 patent makes clear that the heart of the claimed subject matter is generating prices for construction projects, a process that can be accomplished without automation technology. Ex. 1001, 1:15–62. The claims themselves recite “[a] non-transitory computer readable medium [that] causes [a] computer to generate a price schedule” and “[a] system for creating a pricing schedule.” Id. at 78:43–51, 82:4. As discussed above, the computer technology recited in the claims is used merely as a tool to automate the process of determining the price of a construction project. Determining a price is an abstract idea. See Versata Dev. Grp., 793 F.3d at 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, on the current record, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that the claims of the ’820 patent are directed to an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice analysis.” slip op. at 20

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “application of an abstract idea. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. Petitioner argues that the challenged claims have no such elements, because “the challenged claims add nothing more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the abstract idea of calculating a price.” Pet. 32–48. Patent Owner argues that the presence of the add-on computer software code limitations in the challenged claims transforms those claims into patent-eligible applications. Resp. 49–50. We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’820 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.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,515,820 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,515,820
• Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2017 · CBM2016-00008 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under § 101 and obvious over IAB 1 and IAB 2; claims 5 and 11 are also obvious over IAB 1, IAB 2, and Laurent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “a first code on the server side computing device . . . sending said first code to said at least one device over a communication network. PO Resp. 144. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner “inconsistently pointed [] to cookies as constituting a first code,” and Patent Owner alleges that this is insufficient because claim 1 does not discuss cookies. Id. at 146. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has equated code generation with cookies and that is improper because cookies are used only to store the code after it has been generated. Id. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s analysis. Petitioner’s declarant, Stephen Gray, asserts that “[c]ookies are set by servers that store the cookie in the client. That cookie is then transmitted back from the client to the server upon subsequent accesses by the user to the origin server that set the cookie.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 60. Gray opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “when a user clicks a cookie-enabled website, a cookie is generated on the server and this cookie is stored on the client computer along with all of the information.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 105. We find that this comports with IAB 1’s description of measuring the number of visits to a web site by using a “Unique Cookie with Heuristic.” Ex. 1004, 5. IAB 1’s server stores “a small piece of information with a browser.” Id. IAB 2 notes that “[t]he web server responds to the user browser by checking for an existing cookie and creating one if one does not exist.” Ex. 1005, 27 (emphasis added). As described in the IAB references, cookies are designed to be unique to each browser, or if possible, the cookies should be unique to each user. Ex. 1004, 5, Ex. 1005, 21–22, 27. We find that these disclosures from IAB 1 and IAB 2 would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed first code.” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelOther
  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “analyze patentability using the broadest reasonable construction of the claims in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Neither party makes an explicit claim construction argument in the proceeding. See generally PO Resp., Reply. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 17

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner

    “Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Thus, we must determine whether the claims are directed to “longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.” Id. at 1327. What we are presented with is a system for marking the occurrence of two events and making a determination about the validity of the second occurrence based on the time elapsed between occurrences. We find that this is a longstanding business practice as exemplified by Petitioner’s pharmacy example. See Pet. 47. Patent Owner asserts that the ’057 patent is different from the sort of fraud detection that may be performed by a pharmacist because the challenged claims are “able to handle millions of clicks in real time whether from the same or different users.” PO Resp. 90. We do not agree. The claims recite only two data points, a time associated with click one and a time associated with click two. Thus, a pharmacist comparing the dates or times for two prescription requests is performing the same comparison as the one recited in the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the system be able to handle millions of data points. Further, there is no discussion of the determination being made in real time and to the contrary the specification states that “by observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period of time, be it a short time or a longer period, such as a day or a week, the system can automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate.” Ex. 1001, 2:64‒3:2. In addition, while the claims recite the creation of codes and encoded codes none of this is used by the claimed method to perform its determination. That data merely is sent from one place to another while the system marks the time associated with a click. The only information used in the determination is the time of the two clicks. The claims are not directed to improving the function of the computer or its associated software; instead, they are directed to using a computer to perform a well-known business task. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Therefore, we are persuaded that the challenged claims are directed to a longstanding economic task and not to an improvement to the computer functionality itself. Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has established that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,671,057 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,671,057
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / Google, Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / Google, Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,061,598
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2016 · CBM2015-00033 · APJ Matthew R Clements · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving claims 25, 26, 30, and 32 unpatentable under § 101 because the request did not show the Board misapprehended or overlooked a matter.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Other

    “Smartflash’s arguments are either new or were addressed in our Final Decision. For example, Smartflash’s argument that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Req. Reh’g 11–13) is new, and therefore, improper in a request for rehearing, because Smartflash did not argue the first step of the analysis articulated in Mayo and Alice in its Patent Owner Response. See PO Resp. 15–29 (Patent Owner Response argues that claims are statutory under only the second step of Mayo and Alice); see also Paper 38 (transcript of oral hearing), 6:13–16 (Petitioner stating that “Patent Owner has presented no argument whatsoever to contest that its claims are directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of Mayo and Alice.”), id. at 6:17–18 (Petitioner also stating “It [] also never disputed the articulation of those abstract ideas”).” slip op. at 4

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2016 · CBM2015-00032 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving its determination that claims 14, 19, and 22 are patent ineligible under § 101 unchanged.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “burden of showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached

    “determination that claims 14, 19, and 22 (“the challenged claims”) are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Req. Reh’g 5. In its Request, Smartflash presents arguments directed to alleged similarities between the challenged claims and those at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Req. Reh’g 5–10) and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-2044 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016), and alleged differences between the challenged claims and those at issue in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (id. at 10–15).” slip op. at 4

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptDecided for patent owner

    “As we stated in our Final Written Decision and Petitioner argues, the ’772 patent specification treats as well-known and conventional all potentially technical elements of claims 14, 19, and 22, the claimed code performs generic computer functions, and the claims recite several generic and conventional data types. Final Dec. 15–17; Notice Resp. 1–2. These limitations of claims 14, 19, and 22 “do not yield a result that overrides the routine and conventional manner in which this technology operates.” Final Dec. 20. Rather, each of the challenged claims is “an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way,” making it patent ineligible. See BASCOM, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6, 3 We note that U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 B2 is not at issue in this proceeding. *7. Also, “[t]he concept of storing two different types of information4 in the same place or on the same device is an age old practice.” Final Dec. 22. For example, “the prior art discloses products, such as electronic data, that could store both the content and conditions for providing access to the content, such as ‘a time bomb or other disabling device which will disable the product at the end of the rental period.’” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1315, Abstract, 10:24–30).” slip op. at 7

  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772

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.