- Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00025 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–20 were more likely than not unpatentable over either obviousness ground, for lack of utility, or as indefinite.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’033 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–22, 44–45). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’033 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not offer a specific construction for any claim terms. Pet. 19–20. Rather, Petitioner contends that “the outer boundary of the Challenged Claims lacks reasonable certainty,” and, therefore, “the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b).” Pet. 20. Petitioner further contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious “regardless of the outer boundary of the claims.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s arguments regarding indefiniteness, and does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. As explained in detail below, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, and determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner focuses its obviousness challenge on 1PNZQ23’s phenotype, and does not address its genotype. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 26–32 (comparing 1PNZQ23’s phenotype with the phenotypes of the asserted prior art). Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any information in the Petition or Reply regarding 1PNZQ23’s genotype that supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding obviousness. Furthermore, Patent Owner offers information suggesting that “the breeding of 1PNZQ23 was unpredictable even with both parents being known in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Schnable addresses unpredictability in the breeding process, stating: distinct even when the F1 plant itself results from a cross of two inbreds. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not expect that a cross of the same parents will produce F2 or D1 progeny identical to 1PNZQ23. . . . [T]he genome of a progeny plant is the result of genetic segregation and recombination in the F1 plant of the two parental genomes and the chance of the exact same child resulting from that initial biparental cross is infinitesimally small. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123. This information undermines Petitioner’s arguments regarding an expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,707,033 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · PGR2024-00023 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because the petition did not show they were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness, utility, written-description, or enablement ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’545 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist as along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’545 patent, and we adopt it for purposes” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2019). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“additional reasons. For example, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at PH4CYJ based on Smalley’s disclosure alone. Prelim. Resp. 51–52. According to the ’545 patent specification, the claimed PH4CYJ inbred maize variety is a cross between inbred line PH1VNA and inbred line PH1KTF. Ex. 1001, 37:62–64. In the simplest terms, PH1VNA and PH1KTF are the parents, and their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety PH4CYJ. The ’545 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,696,545 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00019 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because the Petition did not show they were more likely than not unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–20 of the ’803 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a post-grant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’803 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner also does not construe and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety 1PFLQ21. The ’803 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the selection of the progeny was based on genetic analysis predicting disease, insect, and agronomic phenotypic performance. Id. 37:64–66. “Inbred 1PFLQ21 was developed by producing a doubled haploid from the F1 plants, selfing and using pedigree selection amongst the D1 lines, and selfing and bulking from the subsequent generations.” Id. 37:66–38:3. The ’803 patent specification, therefore, makes it clear that simply crossing both parental inbred maize lines is not reasonably expected to result in the claimed inbred maize variety; rather, it explains that more plant breeding work is required to arrive at the 1PFLQ21 inbred maize line than just having both parental inbred maize lines available.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,659,803 - Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 24, 2024 · PGR2024-00020 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution
Denied institution of PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood equivalent under § 324 that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’020 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a high level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist . . . along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art,” but “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’020 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Based on these disclosures in Smalley, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the parental line PH1D84 could have been used as a starting point to arrive at other inbred lines. See Pet. 41. Petitioner, however, fails to demonstrate sufficiently how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in developing 1PFHC43 specifically, when its other parent was not known in the art at the relevant time. As Dr. Schnable explains, 1PFHC43’s genome is derived from its parents. Ex. 2004 ¶ 115. Petitioner does not address how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce the claimed seed, including its unique genotype, without having access to PH1VNA or its genomic and phenotypic information.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,666,020 - 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 - Mitchell International, Inc. v. Audatex North America, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2016 · CBM2014-00174 · APJ Lora M Green · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–31 are unpatentable under § 101 and anticipated by or obvious over Reimel; the motion to amend with substitute claims 32–62 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We have carefully considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but we do not agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “insurance claim,” when read in light of the Specification, is a “request to recover market value or repair cost in association with an insurance policy.” The portion of the Specification Petitioner is relying upon is only describing the state of the art at the time of invention. Moreover, it uses terms such as “may” and “typically,” and, thus, does not explicitly define “insurance claim” as Patent Owner would have us do. Thus, we see no reason to deviate from the construction of the claim term “data relating to an insurance claim for a damaged vehicle” that we adopted in the Decision on Institution; that is, as encompassing, but not being limited to, any data that would be used in making an insurance claim. Dec. 12. Moreover, even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s more limited construction of “insurance claim,” Patent Owner does not explain how that would further limit the data that would be entered, and in fact, Patent Owner notes (PO Resp. 1) that it does not disagree with the interpretation of “data” we adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Here, we observe that each challenged claim is directed to the fundamental concept of providing a vehicle valuation using information about the vehicle. Patent Owner contends that, unlike the claims in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), the claims at issue in the instant proceeding are not drawn to an algorithm. PO Resp. 12–14. When the claims are analyzed as a whole, as urged by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 10), however, the claims recite nothing more than the collection of information to generate a valuation report for a damaged vehicle. Moreover, all the steps could be performed without the use of a computer. Specifically, the steps and calculations covered by the claims essentially require determining the value of a damaged vehicle by entering data related to an insurance claim, such as mileage and vehicle condition, and processing the data to generate a valuation report for the damaged vehicle; a calculation that can be performed by the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. See, e.g., Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., No. 2015-1415, 2016 WL 362415, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) (noting that the steps of the claims could be performed by a human without the use of a computer in concluding that the claims at issue were drawn to an abstract idea). The fact that the claims at issue are not per se drawn to an algorithm does not insulate them from being found an abstract idea. The claims in Alice were drawn to “a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’ . . . by using a third-party intermediary.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351–52. The claims at issue in Mortgage Grader were drawn to a computer-implemented system that allowed borrowers to shop anonymously for loan packages from a plurality of lenders. Mortgage Grader, 2016 WL 362415, at *1. Thus, the fact that the claims in those cases were not specifically drawn to an algorithm did not prevent them from being drawn to an abstract idea. We are persuaded that, similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, and the concept of shopping anonymously for loan packages in Mortgage Grader¸ the concept at issue here—obtaining a vehicle valuation report for a damaged vehicle— is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce,” and “squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57; Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3231. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the challenged claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” slip op. at 16
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 8,200,513 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,200,513
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.