• Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH / Dynaenergetics US, Inc. v. Qinetiq LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00003 · APJ William A Capp · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–5 not unpatentable; Petitioner failed to prove its asserted §101, §102, §103, and §112 grounds, including indefiniteness and written-description challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “prevail, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Serra testifies that he is familiar with the” slip op. at 45

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “process of claim 1. The first principal decision is the selection of a known liner design from a library that is made at the beginning of the design process. The second principal decision is made at the conclusion of the design process where a “final liner design” emerges after hole shapes produced by modified liners converge toward the desired hole shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read claim 1 in context, would understand that the term “optimized” in the claim refers to the hole shape of the known liner design that is selected from among the known liner designs in the library during the selection step of the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly understand that the design that is chosen in the initial selection process is “optimized” with respect to the population of known liner designs in the library as opposed to being “optimized” relative to liner designs produced during the later varying and modelling steps of the design process.” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1–5 of the ’039” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,215,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Bilski · Phillips · Markman · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,215,039
• Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / MGM Resorts International et al. v. Gan (UK) LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00027 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Original claims 11–18, 21, and 22 and proposed substitute claims 23–39 were held unpatentable; the revised motion to amend was granted in part and otherwise denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “For reasons discussed below, we grant in-part Patent Owner’s RMTA and cancel original claims 1 and 3–10. We otherwise deny Patent Owner’s RMTA to enter revised substitute claims 23–31, which non-contingently amend original claims 1 and 3–10, and we deny Patent Owner’s RMTA to enter revised substitute claims 32–39, which contingently amend original claims 12–14, 16–18, 21, and 22.” slip op. at 3

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther

    “V. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE Because our findings and determinations do not rely on the paragraphs of Dr. Shamos’ declaration that Petitioner’s Motion to Strike seeks to strike, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Strike as moot.” slip op. at 104

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Having reviewed the arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that original claims 11–18, 21, and 22 of the challenged claims of the ’296 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'IneligibleStep1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “We determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that revised substitute claims 23–39 are unpatentable. Specifically, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that revised substitute claims 23–39 are not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, and claims 23–39 are unpatentable under prior art asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as discussed below. See Opp. RMTA 4–6, 8–28.” slip op. at 3

  Patent outcomesUS 8,821,296 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 8,821,296
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2020 · PGR2019-00018 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or inventive concept; the § 112(b) and § 112(d) challenges were not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'IneligibleStep1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that “the holding in In re Smith does not require that the claims be directed to rules for playing a ‘particular’ game.” Pet. Reply 5. Rather, the Federal Circuit held that “claims, describing a set of rules for a game, are drawn to an abstract idea.” In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 819. Notably, the Federal Circuit did not require that such rules only be applicable to a particular game. Id. Further, we agree that the claims at issue are similar to those in Planet Bingo as explained by Petitioner in its Reply. See Pet. Reply 6–8; see also Ex. 1009, 11.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Pet. Reply 9. The claimed “input face” is simply not claimed in sufficient detail to require the type of specific user interface found to transform the claims into a practical application in Core Wireless, DDR Holdings, and other similar cases. Rather, as admitted by Patent Owner’s expert, the claims recite a generic “input face.” See Ex. 1005, 52:16–20, 78:22–79:1, 79:13–18, 108:11–109:8.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Petition, Petitioner does not proffer a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Pet. In its Response, Patent Owner does not provide a definition either. See generally PO Resp. In its Reply, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Shamos, that a person of ordinary skill in the art has “two years of experience implementing interactive software having touchscreen user interfaces.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 38). In its Sur-Reply. Patent Owner essentially agrees with Petitioner’s definition, but asserts that this definition does not require such a person to have personally written code for touchscreen user interfaces. See PO Sur-Reply 5. Having reviewed the entire record in this proceeding, we agree with both Petitioner and Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “two years of experience implementing interactive software having touchscreen user interfaces” as this is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the ’799 patent and evidence of record. Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-Reply 5. We further agree with Patent Owner that such a person need not have personally written code for such implementation for the same reasons.” slip op. at 37

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “We find unpersuasive Petitioner’s contentions regarding the claim terms “direction” and “direction operation,” as well as the limitation “moving . . . one or more of the plurality of associated objects as a group.” Dec. 24. Specifically, we credit Dr. Shamos’s testimony that the terms “direction” and “direction operation” is not indefinite and that, although the limitation “moving . . . one or more of the plurality of associated objects as a group” may be broad, it is not indefinite. Id. Having considered the entire record in this proceeding, Petitioner has not demonstrated that claims 1–20 are indefinite. 4. Conclusion Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1–20 fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 9,891,799 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,891,799
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2019 · PGR2018-00061 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–7 and 9–20 not shown unpatentable under §§ 101, 112(a), or 112(b), because Petitioner did not meet its burden on any ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “would possess at least an associate degree in the field of computer science (or a related academic field) and at least two additional years of practical (e.g., work) experience in the field of video game programming and development.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 27). Patent Owner alternatively contends that, if the person of ordinary skill in the art did not have a formal degree, then such a person “would have at least four years of practical (e.g., work) experience in the field of video game programming and development, or an equivalent field of study” and “would have training or familiarity with computer processing technology, namely systems for processing the progress of a video game, including the generation of game screens, and the tracking and displaying of in-game player status information.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 27). Petitioner does not present any arguments regarding level of ordinary skill. See generally Pet.; Pet. Reply. We find Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill credible based on the Specification and apply that level of skill to our analysis of the parties’ disputes. We, thus, adopt Patent Owner’s unchallenged, asserted level of ordinary skill quoted above. slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner, on the other hand, describes how the Specification of the ’793 patent, with supporting declarant testimony, provides adequate written description for the disputed limitations. PO Resp. 69–71 (citing Pet. 53–54; Ex. 1001, 4:32–34; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 89–105). The Specification states that “a screen information generator that generates information relating to a game screen based on an instruction received by the instruction receiving device.” Ex. 1001, 4:32–34. Patent Owner also presents declarant testimony that explains the quoted portion of the Specification and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood from the Specification that it provides adequate written description support for the disputed recitations. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 89–105 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:1–7, 3:9–12, 3:46–53, 4:32–34, 4:37–41, 4:47–49, 7:24–58, 8:9–11, 8:18–35, 8:42–45, 8:65–67, 11:5–6, Figs. 2A, 2B). We credit Patent Owner’s declarant testimony because the relied upon portions of the Specification support it.” slip op. at 28

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “claims 1, 11, and 17 are limiting. Turning to the language of the claims, claim 1 recites “generating information relating to a game screen based on a received instruction [(‘the generating step’)]; and outputting information relating to the generated game screen to a user terminal at a predetermined time [(‘the outputting step’)].” Ex. 1001, 13:57–60. Claim 1’s wherein clause recites, inter alia, that “the second game screen includes latest state information at a time when receiving a first instruction which is an instruction to update the state information.” Because of the logical link between the “received instruction” in the generating step and the “when receiving a first instruction” in the wherein clause, we determine that the wherein clause must relate to the generating step, not the outputting step, as asserted by Petitioner. Claim 11 also recites “a screen information generation step in which a screen information generator . . . generates information relating to a game screen based on the instruction received” and its wherein clause expressly states “in the screen information generation step.” Ex. 1001, 14:66–15:2, 15:9. Similarly, claim 17 recites “a screen information generator that generates information relating to a game screen based on an instruction received” and expressly states “wherein the screen information generator generates information.” Id. at 16:13–15, 16:19. We, thus, determine that the claims support Patent Owner’s contention that the wherein clauses refer to recitations regarding generating information relating to a game screen based on received instruction. Turning to the Specification, we find that it describes the claimed invention as “capable of reducing the influence of a communication state or performance of hardware by generating a game screen with information to be displayed on the game screen as the latest information at the timing when an instruction to update is received.” Ex. 1001, 1:51–55 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 2004 ¶ 49 (testifying as to why the Specification describes a technological improvement). The wherein clauses of the independent claims reiterate this part of the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 13:61–67, 15:9–17, 16:19–27. We, thus, find that the Specification supports our determination that the wherein clauses refer to recitations regarding generating information relating to a game screen based on received instruction and are limiting.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “To resolve the parties’ dispute, we determine that an express interpretation for any of these terms or any other claim term is not necessary. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 9,700,793 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,700,793
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2019 · PGR2018-00050 · APJ Carl M Defranco · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–10 not unpatentable under § 101, § 112(a), or § 112(b), finding the claims patent eligible and rejecting the written-description and indefiniteness challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Neither Supercell nor GREE proposes a construction for any particular claim term. See Pet. 20–26; PO Resp. 6. We determine that no express construction of the claim terms is necessary for purposes of this decision, with one exception. We note that the Specification of the ’886 patent describes the claimed “terminal attribute” as follows: “Examples of the attribute information may include the OS version, the browser type, the terminal type, the communication circumstance, and the like.” Ex. 1001, 11:33–35. In that regard, the Specification also explains a communication circumstance as follows: “For example, in a case where an information processing speed or a communication speed in the user terminal . . . is high, the number of rounds is set to be large.” Id. at 11:20–23. As such, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “terminal attribute” encompasses at least the examples listed in the Specification and should be read accordingly.3” slip op. at 5

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with GREE that the claims are drawn to a specific technological improvement in the transmission of online game content by using a terminal attribute to improve the efficiency and functionality of transmitting multiple rounds of an online game to a user terminal, and that this improvement is not an abstract idea.7 Although, as Supercell argues, the recited function of “transmitting game view data” may be result-oriented (see Pet. 33–37; Reply 4–6), the claims nonetheless recite a specific technique for achieving that result-oriented function—identifying a terminal attribute of the user terminal and determining the predetermined number based on the terminal attribute. That particular technique, as made clear by the ’886 patent, solves a specific technological problem with conventional online game systems—long wait times and interruptions in the transmission of multiple rounds of the game. See Ex. 1001, 1:46–54 (describing the problem with conventional online game systems). So, rather than reciting just result-oriented functions, the clear focus” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “As explained by GREE’s expert, a skilled artisan would have known from that description how to determine the predetermined number of rounds using a terminal attribute table. See Ex. 1007, 57:20–62:10, 82:14–23, 87:7– 90:22. That expert testimony, which we find persuasive, is unrebutted and stands in direct contrast to unsupported attorney argument from Supercell. See Pet. 58–61; Reply 19–21. Thus, we determine that Supercell has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description support.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Pet. 64–65; Reply 22–23. But aside from that conclusory assertion, Supercell’s Petition simply poses a series of rhetorical questions without further analysis or evidentiary support. See Pet. 65–66. GREE, on the other hand, offers expert testimony as to why the meaning of the claimed “determining” limitation is clear not only from the claim language itself but also in light of the Specification. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40– 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:20–41). We find that testimony persuasive. We also find persuasive GREE’s reasoning in response to each of the rhetorical questions raised by Supercell, even though it was under no obligation to do so. PO Resp. 47–49; Sur-Reply 17–19. And given the lack of argument, not to mention evidentiary support, in the Petition as to the purported indefiniteness of the challenged claims, we are not persuaded that Supercell has carried its burden of showing that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,675,886 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 9,675,886
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2019 · PGR2018-00055 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101; the Board denied the motion to amend because substitute claims 13–24 are also patent ineligible.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “claims provide more detail than the original claims, we do not agree that in this instance such detail renders the proposed substitute claims patent eligible. As explained above in Part II.B.2.a, the original claims are directed to a judicial exception (namely a certain method of organizing human activity), which is patent ineligible. The proposed substitute claims do not remedy this deficiency in the original claims. Rather, the proposed substitute claims merely add more detail to the ineligible subject matter. For example, substitute claim 13 recites “controlling . . . an effect of an attack . . . according to . . . a plurality of attack values, each of the plurality of attack values assigned to each attack of the number of attacks within the predetermined time by any characters in the group.” PO MTA 27. This recitation clearly provides more detail than was provided in original claim 1; however, the additional detail specifies how the video game is conducted (i.e., the rules to be followed) as opposed to a technological improvement. In other words the proposed substitute claims, like the original claims, recite following rules (specifically, rules for a battle game), which is a certain method of organizing human activity that has been found to be patent ineligible. Guidance at 52. For this reason, and the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.b regarding the original claims, we determine that the proposed substitute claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea). We also determine that the proposed substitute claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application for the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.c and that the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea do not recite an inventive concept for the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.d. Accordingly, we find that substitute claims 13–24 are not patent eligible.” slip op. at 52

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct because once again Patent Owner relies on the limitations that are encompassed by the judicial exception for the inventive concept. Our analysis under step 2B, like our analysis above under step 2A prong 2, looks to the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (“For example the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.”). Patent Owner identifies no additional elements beyond the judicial exception as providing an inventive concept and does not argue that the additional elements beyond that judicial exception are not well-known, routine, and conventional. For these reasons, we determine that claims 1–12 do not provide an inventive concept.” slip op. at 27

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

    “Even if Patent Owner’s assertions that the limitations of claim 1 are analogous to the identified limitations in Examples 37 and 38 of the Guidance and do not recite mathematical concepts, this is not dispositive on the issue of whether claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The Guidance identifies “following rules” such as “rules for conducting a wagering game” as one method of organizing human activity that is patent ineligible. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (citing In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 818). The preamble to claim 1 recites “[a] method for providing a battle game to each of a plurality of client devices via a network.” Ex. 1001, 7:54– 55. The preamble of Example 37 recites “[a] method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system” and the preamble of Example 38 recites “[a] method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog audio mixer.” USPTO, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas 1 (Jan. 7, 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_ 20190107.pdf. Neither of the example claims has anything to do with a method of providing a battle game or following rules, and thus, cannot demonstrate by analogy that claim 1 is patent eligible.” slip op. at 22

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

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct because once again Patent Owner relies on the limitations that are encompassed by the judicial exception for the inventive concept. Our analysis under step 2B, like our analysis above under step 2A prong 2, looks to the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (“For example the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.”). Patent Owner identifies no additional elements beyond the judicial exception as providing an inventive concept and does not argue that the additional elements beyond that judicial exception are not well-known, routine, and conventional. For these reasons, we determine that claims 1–12 do not provide an inventive concept. e. Conclusion re Subject Matter Eligibility For the reasons set forth in Parts II.B.2.a–d, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–12 are not subject matter eligible.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,687,744 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,687,744
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2019 · PGR2018-00029 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: the Board found them ineligible under § 101 and also found claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 112(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “division” to “way of managing a game and playing a game” does not alter our analysis, because “displaying a panel selection in a division” is no more than identifying high level details of a game that are substantively analogous to how “wagering game,” “dice game,” and “bingo game” are identified in the aforementioned cases. Accordingly, we find that independent claim 1 recites “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” which, under the Guidance, is one of certain methods of organizing human activity and, thus, an abstract idea.” slip op. at 26

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

    “way of managing a game and playing a game involving displaying a panel selection in a division.” Accordingly, Petitioner is not required to account for any limitations within this characterization, at least for the purposes of determining whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional.” And when this framework is applied properly, we see how most of Patent Owner’s assertions fall away. First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has provided no evidence that the claimed use of panels is well-understood, routine, or conventional. PO Resp. 32–39 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:36–38, 6:42–46, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53. 7:55–56; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 22–30). More specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the panels disclosed in the ’583 patent may “display a still image,” “display a movie when the panels are emphasized and displayed,” “zoom in,” and may have portions of frames, in which the panels are disposed, that “display the texts showing the sound effect and/or an effect display portion.” PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53, 7:55–56). Patent Owner asserts that these elements provide an interactive and dynamic format using panels that was unique and unconventional. PO Resp. 34. However, Petitioner is not required to show that those properties of the panels described in the ’583 patent, whether in an interactive and dynamic format or otherwise, are well-understood, routine, and conventional, because these elements are not recited in any of the independent claims.11 Relatedly, Petitioner is not slip op. at 45

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’583 patent fails to provide adequate written description support for the following limitations of representative claim 1:” slip op. at 58

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Pet. Reply 25; see also Tr. 37:3–11 (continuing line of argument). Here, once again, Petitioner mistakes breadth, which is permitted, for indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d at 693. As admitted by Patent Owner, the limitation and, in particular the term “allowed,” is certainly broad. See Tr. 73:15–74:2. But as stated by Mr. Crane, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “one character would not be allowed to dispose a panel . . . into a division that is occupied by a panel belonging to another character,” or if “an attempt is being made to dispose a panel into a space where the panel will not fit, it will also not be allowed to be disposed.” PO Sur-Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 44; Ex. 1009, 107:24–108:4). Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence or analysis to show that such an example from the ’583 patent is insufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill and compels a determination of indefiniteness.17 For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–15 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 9,636,583 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Enfish · Electric Power · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,636,583
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2018 · PGR2018-00039 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied GREE’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting PGR of claims 1–8 based on the § 101 challenge.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “limitations. For example, as noted by Patent Owner, the full quotation is “[i]n a conventional battle game, however, during one battle, the user needs to select a command to determine the action of the player character many times . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:41–43 (emphasis added). And by modeling that behavior in the future, the number of user operations are reduced. Accordingly, while we acknowledge that it is plausible, during trial, that Patent Owner will be able to show that such a disclosure is insufficient evidentiary support for “a second mode for executing the battle with fewer user operations received from the communication terminal than in the first mode,” we disagree that it has no factual bearing on the above limitation.” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “not rest solely on our determination that the claim elements or combinations of elements analyzed on pages 32–39 of the Petition were well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the field. Rather, our Decision was also based on the sufficiency of Petitioner’s arguments in totality with respect to the second step of Alice, for example, that for some limitations, “the claimed improvements identified by Patent Owner do not improve the technological field. Rather, they improve game play for the user.” Dec. 17. Further, as we explained, “the claims recite the use of conventional computer activity to determine the outcome of the procedure. Such claims ‘defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101’” and that “claim 1 merely indicates that these steps are performed by a server without further details.” Dec. 12–13 (citing Elec. Power Group 830 F.3d 1351; Ex. 1001, 19:52–20:11. While that analysis does concern the first step of Alice, it, nevertheless, does have some bearing on the second step as well.” slip op. at 4

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached

    “not rest solely on our determination that the claim elements or combinations of elements analyzed on pages 32–39 of the Petition were well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the field. Rather, our Decision was also based on the sufficiency of Petitioner’s arguments in totality with respect to the second step of Alice, for example, that for some limitations, “the claimed improvements identified by Patent Owner do not improve the technological field. Rather, they improve game play for the user.” Dec. 17. Further, as we explained, “the claims recite the use of conventional computer activity to determine the outcome of the procedure. Such claims ‘defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101’” and that “claim 1 merely indicates that these steps are performed by a server without further details.” Dec. 12–13 (citing Elec. Power Group 830 F.3d 1351; Ex. 1001, 19:52–20:11. While that analysis does concern the first step of Alice, it, nevertheless, does have some bearing on the second step as well.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “address Patent Owner’s countervailing evidence with respect to the above limitations, in particular, paragraphs 24 and 28–34 of Mr. Zyda’s Declaration. Req. 8–9. While we acknowledge that it was not expressly referenced in our Decision, it was taken into account and determined that, while it is worthy of some weight, Petitioner’s evidence and analysis presented a sufficient factual dispute for which trial is warranted. Given the Petition’s adequate analysis, at this stage of the proceeding, about the generic nature of the components recited in the ’308 patent and the lack of inventive means for achieving the results claimed (Pet. 32–39), we are unpersuaded that our Decision granting institution was an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 5

  § 101 eligibilitycites Berkheimer
  Patents in suitUS 9,669,308
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, 16–19, 23–24, 26–28, 32–36, and 41 are unpatentable under § 101; the petitioner did not show claims 17, 18, 23, 24, and 28 unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Considering each claim limitation, as well as each explicit citation to the specification expressly set forth in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, via analysis and evidence explicitly set forth on pages 6–7 of the Petition, that independent claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious.” slip op. at 22

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”) and disclaimed claims 5, 25, 39, and 43 (Ex. 2006). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur”), and Petitioner filed a Response to the Sur-Reply (Paper 41, “Pet. Sur”).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute the construction of certain claim terms. Pet. 23–28; PO Resp. 34–46. We apply the constructions of those terms set forth in Paper 49 in this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree. The preambles of independent claims 1, 19, and 33 expressly state as much. In particular, the preamble of claims 1 and 33 provide: “A system for providing targeted advertising to a multimedia content end user” (claim 1) or “a plurality of multimedia content end users” (claim 33). Ex. 1003, 46:13–14, 49:59–60. Likewise, claim 19’s preamble refers to “[a] device for providing targeted advertising to an end user.” Id. at 48:20–21. Taking claim 1 as a representative example, the remainder of the claim recites certain tangible components, namely a “storage device” and specifically, an “addressable and reserved storage space”; a “processor”; and “software implemented by” the processor. Id. at 46:13–28. The claim further requires the following functionalities: the processor “reserv[ing]” the storage space; the processor “select[ing] particular advertising data suitable for targeting to at least one end user based upon predefined criteria data”; the storage space “storing digital advertising data” and specifically, the “particular advertising data”; and the “particular advertising data” being “accessible to” the user. Id. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 1, taken as a whole, is focused on the concept of providing targeted advertising to a user. Further, the claims merely invoke computers as a tool to implement the concept of targeted advertising, and are not directed to any improvement in computer functionality. See Pet. 34; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 944–945. The claims recite generic components and functionality. For example, in claim 1, the required components, outlined above—a storage device and specifically, a storage space, a processor, and software— are conventional. The recited functionalities—reserving the storage space for advertising data, selecting advertising data targeted to a user, storing that data, and making that data accessible to the user—are likewise basic and routine. As Petitioner points out, the specification expressly acknowledges that some of the tangible components of the recited system were known. See Pet. 7–8, 33–34, 40–75; Ex. 1008 ¶ 949. For instance, the specification refers to storage device 14 as “any medium known in the art for storing electronic data” and similarly, “any storage device for audio/video information known in the art.” Ex. 1003, 13:22–28, 15:1–5, 24:66–25:7; see id. at [57], 5:3–6, 21:42–22:2. The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, also persuade us that each recited component and functionality was generic, conventional, and known. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 945, 949–954; see id. ¶¶ 955–987.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · 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 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 8,244,586

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.