- 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 - Bank Of America, N.A. / PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2015 · CBM2014-00030 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea implemented with routine, conventional activity.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“are directed to the abstract idea of tailoring an information provider’s web page based on data about a particular user. Institution Dec. 12. Patent Owner responds that the claims do not fall within any of the “categories of abstract ideas enumerated by the Supreme Court.” PO Resp. 15. Citing Alice, Patent Owner asserts that the claims are not directed to “an idea itself, a mathematical formula or algorithm, a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce, or a method of organizing human activity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, Patent Owner asserts, the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is not met. Id. at 15–21. Petitioners respond that in Alice, the Supreme Court expressly declined to limit the categories of unpatentable abstract ideas as suggested by Patent Owner. Reply 3. We are persuaded by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Alice that Petitioners are correct, and that these enumerated categories were not intended as exclusive. Specifically, the Court wrote: “In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case.” 134 S. Ct. at 2357; accord Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. We are influenced also by the evidence from Patent Owner’s expert, who testified as follows: I’m trying to make clear that the patent is described at what may appear to be a fairly high abstract level, because it was generally known by persons of skill in the art that there are multiple ways to go about reducing the invention to practice depending upon the technologies that they have at hand. And it wasn’t the patent’s job to be that specific at the time. I shouldn’t say it wasn’t the patent’s job. The inventor did not choose to describe at that level of detail. Ex. 1037, 47:12–23 (emphasis added). We therefore conclude that the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is met for claims 1–23.” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“We are convinced by Petitioners’ argument that the ʼ382 patent claims do not contain an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patentable invention. Stated another way, we determine that the claims do not “significantly more than simply describe that abstract method.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715. Instead, “the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.” Id.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s expert does not rebut convincingly Dr. Myers’s claim- by-claim analysis. Instead, Patent Owner’s expert addresses the claims in two groups only. Ex. 2003, ¶¶ 26–28. We find this approach unconvincing, and therefore, credit Dr. Myers’s testimony as to specific claims over the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert. We are therefore persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that, like the claims considered in Ultramercial, claims 1–23 of the ʼ382 patent simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715. For the reasons stated above, none of the elements recited in the claims, including the “interactive interface” and the “plurality of data streams,” transforms the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. We credit the cited testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that the ʼ382 patent lacks implementation details because it is written at a “fairly high abstract level.” See supra. As a result of this choice by the patentee, the risk of preemption is great.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that neither Petitioners nor the Board provides any evidence that “interactive” and “Internet” have the same meaning, “either in the ʼ382 patent or as understood by one of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner further contends that Board should adopt a construction requiring the interface to be a “selectively tailored medium.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioners respond that there are not any claim terms “that could reasonably be construed in a manner that would impact the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.” Reply 11. Petitioners further contend that the Board’s construction was nevertheless correct because the patent specification and claims make it clear that it is the information that is “selectively tailored,” not the information medium. Id. at 11–12. We are not convinced of any error in our initial construction of “interactive interface” as an Internet interface. Institution Dec. 6. Petitioners’ reliance on the Myers Declaration and the ʼ382 patent’s interchangeable use of interactive and Internet to describe the interface are persuasive. Pet. 15, 17 (citing Myers Dec., Ex. 1004 ¶ 52), 18 (citing Ex. 1001, Title, Abstract). We, therefore, determine that the correct construction of “interactive interface” is “an Internet interface that provides a medium for information users to communicate with information providers.”” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 7,603,382 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,603,382 - U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Management CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 22, 2014 · CBM2013-00014 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 13, 14, 18, 30, and 31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract economic concept without meaningful additional limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for patent owner
“To construe means-plus-function language in a claim, one “must look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.” In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). More particularly, to construe properly the limitations in claims 13 and 30 reciting a “means for causing said future retirement payments . . . to be deposited into said account,” the limitations “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.3 As noted by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 29), the corresponding structure within the specification supporting the means-plus-function limitation states the following: “[b]enefits source 12 of system 10 disburses retirement payments directly to an individual direct deposit account 14 in a designated depository 16. Preferably, this is accomplished utilizing the well-known technique of electronic funds transfer.” Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 18–22. Accordingly, we construe “means for causing . . . to be deposited into said account,” recited in claims 13 and 30, to mean “disbursing directly to said account utilizing an electronic funds transfer.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Unlike the means-plus function claims, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the term “deposited” in method claims 1 and 18 should similarly be interpreted to mean “deposited via direct deposit.” PO Resp. 30–33. Patent Owner fails to point to any support in the specification of the ’582 patent that would require the construction of the term “deposited” to mean a direct deposit or electronic funds transfer. If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The specification of the ’582 patent does not set forth expressly a definition of “deposited.” In fact, as cited above, the ’582 patent states that deposits are “[p]referably” conducted with the “well-known technique of electronic funds transfer,” but the specification does not limit the term “deposited” to this implementation. Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 20–22 (emphasis added). Even in cases where the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims are not necessarily limited to that embodiment. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (It is not enough that the only embodiment, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit a claim to that particular limitation.). Here, the specification itself indicates that electronic deposits are preferable, but not required. Therefore, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “deposited” recited in claims 1 and 18 as limited to “deposited via direct deposit.”” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“In accordance with the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim . . . abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts,” we must first “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2355. In Alice Corp., the Supreme Court determined that the claims at issue were “drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement,” i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk. Id. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that “[l]ike the risk hedging in Bilski [v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)], the concept of intermediated settlement is ‘a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.’” Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2356 (citations omitted). With respect to the first step of the “Mayo framework,” the Supreme Court concluded in Alice Corp. that “there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement” in Alice Corp. and that “[b]oth are squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas’ as we have used that term.” Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2357. Here, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s claims are directed to the abstract concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments. Reply 4. Patent Owner does not disagree. Tr. 40 (Patent Owner’s counsel stated at the oral hearing that Patent Owner is “happy to accept what [Petitioner] claim[s] is the abstract concept.”). Similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice Corp. and the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, we find that the concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments is an economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and squarely within the realm of abstract ideas.” slip op. at 12
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 6,625,582 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,625,582
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.