- Risen (Suzhou) Pharma Tech. Co. Ltd. v. Alzheon, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 13, 2023 · PGR2022-00051 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under §§ 101 and 112(a), and denying Grounds 4–6 under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence, we determine that the information presented fails to demonstrate it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’742 patent is unpatentable for ineligibility, lack of written description, or non-enablement. We also exercise our discretion to deny institution of post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“tramiprosate “showed a significant overall treatment effect” in “an APOE4+ sub-group,” including APOE4 homozygotes; “therapeutic interventions applied earlier in the course of AD more likely might achieve the goal of disease modification;” and that “AD would be optimally treated before significant cognitive impairment, during its pre-symptomatic or pre-clinical stages …”) (emphases removed). Accordingly, Caltagirone was previously presented to the Office and we also find that Caltagirone’s disclosures are substantially similar to, or cumulative of, other references previously considered by the Examiner.” slip op. at 49
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“D. Statutory Disclaimer After the filing of the Petition in this proceeding, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer, disclaiming claims 9 and 11–15 of the ’742 patent, effective October 7, 2022. Prelim. Resp. 12; Ex. 2001, 1. “No post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e). We do not analyze the validity of claims 9 and 11–15 based on Petitioner’s challenges (e.g., Grounds 2 and 3) because these claims have been statutorily disclaimed.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at least an M.D. or Ph.D. degree in a biomedical science or equivalent field. They would also have several years of clinical experience treating and/or conducting clinical trials of drugs for AD patients, or professional experience working in clinical trial design and execution related to drugs for AD or supervising such work. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62) (internal citation omitted). Patent Owner does not contest the characterization offered by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 12–13. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization as it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’742 patent and the cited prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,191,742 - Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2017 · CBM2016-00008 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under § 101 and obvious over IAB 1 and IAB 2; claims 5 and 11 are also obvious over IAB 1, IAB 2, and Laurent.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“a first code on the server side computing device . . . sending said first code to said at least one device over a communication network. PO Resp. 144. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner “inconsistently pointed [] to cookies as constituting a first code,” and Patent Owner alleges that this is insufficient because claim 1 does not discuss cookies. Id. at 146. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has equated code generation with cookies and that is improper because cookies are used only to store the code after it has been generated. Id. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s analysis. Petitioner’s declarant, Stephen Gray, asserts that “[c]ookies are set by servers that store the cookie in the client. That cookie is then transmitted back from the client to the server upon subsequent accesses by the user to the origin server that set the cookie.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 60. Gray opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “when a user clicks a cookie-enabled website, a cookie is generated on the server and this cookie is stored on the client computer along with all of the information.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 105. We find that this comports with IAB 1’s description of measuring the number of visits to a web site by using a “Unique Cookie with Heuristic.” Ex. 1004, 5. IAB 1’s server stores “a small piece of information with a browser.” Id. IAB 2 notes that “[t]he web server responds to the user browser by checking for an existing cookie and creating one if one does not exist.” Ex. 1005, 27 (emphasis added). As described in the IAB references, cookies are designed to be unique to each browser, or if possible, the cookies should be unique to each user. Ex. 1004, 5, Ex. 1005, 21–22, 27. We find that these disclosures from IAB 1 and IAB 2 would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed first code.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelOther
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“analyze patentability using the broadest reasonable construction of the claims in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Neither party makes an explicit claim construction argument in the proceeding. See generally PO Resp., Reply. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Thus, we must determine whether the claims are directed to “longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.” Id. at 1327. What we are presented with is a system for marking the occurrence of two events and making a determination about the validity of the second occurrence based on the time elapsed between occurrences. We find that this is a longstanding business practice as exemplified by Petitioner’s pharmacy example. See Pet. 47. Patent Owner asserts that the ’057 patent is different from the sort of fraud detection that may be performed by a pharmacist because the challenged claims are “able to handle millions of clicks in real time whether from the same or different users.” PO Resp. 90. We do not agree. The claims recite only two data points, a time associated with click one and a time associated with click two. Thus, a pharmacist comparing the dates or times for two prescription requests is performing the same comparison as the one recited in the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the system be able to handle millions of data points. Further, there is no discussion of the determination being made in real time and to the contrary the specification states that “by observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period of time, be it a short time or a longer period, such as a day or a week, the system can automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate.” Ex. 1001, 2:64‒3:2. In addition, while the claims recite the creation of codes and encoded codes none of this is used by the claimed method to perform its determination. That data merely is sent from one place to another while the system marks the time associated with a click. The only information used in the determination is the time of the two clicks. The claims are not directed to improving the function of the computer or its associated software; instead, they are directed to using a computer to perform a well-known business task. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Therefore, we are persuaded that the challenged claims are directed to a longstanding economic task and not to an improvement to the computer functionality itself. Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has established that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,671,057 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,671,057 - The Kroger Company / Brookshire Grocery Company v. Nexuscard, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00183 · APJ Minn Chung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of collecting, storing, and processing membership discount information without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- Burden
“Upon considering all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 11 fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” slip op. at 34
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“communication means” Claimed Function: “providing real time (1, 8, 11) 2, 3 communication between [a point of purchase] member merchant’s computer terminal and [a centralized] provider’s computer” Corresponding Structure: a cash register with a communication capability, a credit card verification machine, a terminal, or a scanner, and equivalents “memory storage means” Claimed Function: “containing at least . . . (1, 11) consumer identification code” Corresponding Structure: a magnetic stripe on a card, and equivalents slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“real time “communication without intentional delay, communication” (1, 7, 11) given the processing limitations of the system and the time required to effect the communication” See Dec. on Inst. 8–11. The parties do not dispute these interpretations in their Patent Owner Response and Reply. For this Final Written Decision, after considering the complete record, we see no reason to deviate from those constructions and, therefore, maintain our constructions as set forth above. slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Under the approach described in Alice and further explained in Enfish, Internet Patents, and Electric Power Group, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence that claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above, Petitioner has shown that the claims recite a process to “collect, store, and process information about consumer memberships, merchants, manufacturers, and sales transactions” (Pet. 34), a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” (id. at 71) of “conventional information processing” in the retail industry (id. at 72), for which conventional components, such as a magnetic stripe scanner, computers, and databases, are merely invoked as tools used in their ordinary and conventional manner (Pet. Reply 8–11). In Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit explained that the “the realm of abstract ideas” includes “collecting information, including when limited to particular content.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. The court determined, therefore, that the claims at issue were directed to an abstract idea because “the focus of the asserted claims” is “on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Id. We are persuaded that claims 1 and 11 in this case are similarly directed to an abstract idea because Petitioner’s argument and evidence shows that the focus of the claims, the claims’ “character as a whole,” is on conventional information processing in the context of membership discount programs that use generic computers and conventional devices as tools to provide discounts without coupons.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 5,924,080 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 5,924,080 - NRT Technology Corp. / NRT Technologies, Inc. v. Everi Payments, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · CBM2015-00167 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 101, Akel, or grounds relying on Reeder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We may not institute a CBM patent review “unless the Director[2] determines that the information presented in the petition . . . 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).3 Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner is less likely than not to prevail with respect to all of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny the Petition to institute a CBM patent review, as set forth below.” slip op. at 2
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner has oversimplified the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 31. The challenged claims are not directed simply to the idea of providing money to an account holder or using trial-and-error until success is achieved. Rather, the claims are directed to particular methods of providing money to an account holder using an ATM via a POS transaction after an ATM transaction has failed. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“Applications of such concepts to a new and useful end . . . remain eligible for patent protection.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Further, Petitioner’s analysis omits any consideration of the elements of the claims as ordered combinations to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. It was Petitioner’s burden to do so. Petitioner has not shown that the claims are more likely than not patent-ineligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept”).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“It is a petitioner’s burden to explain how a challenged claim should be construed and how, being so construed, it is unpatentable. 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3)–(4). Petitioner does not propose an express construction for “personal identification number” and does not show that its plain and ordinary meaning would include a password. Further, claim 1 requires entering a PIN into the terminal. In the context of the specification and surrounding claim language, this step is part of the claimed “method of providing money or an item of value to an account-holder.” The teaching on which Petitioner relies, however, relates to a system operator’s back-end access of the Akel system. See Ex. 1006, 6:58–62 (“Each system operator requires a password to access the system . . . .”) (emphasis added). Elsewhere, Akel describes a “customer” (distinct from a system operator) as using a kiosk to obtain cash. Id. at 2:56–3:11. But, Akel does not describe entering a password into a terminal, let alone a PIN, as part of that process. Thus, even if Akel’s password fell within the scope of the recited PIN, the Petition would still fail to show how its use by an operator “to access the system” (see Ex. 1006, 258–60) meets the recited “entering a personal identification number into the terminal” as part of the claimed “method of providing money or an item of value to an account-holder.” Petitioner has not shown that Akel teaches “entering a personal identification number into the terminal.” Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claim 1, or dependent claims 2–8, are more likely than not anticipated by Akel.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“The invention date of the ’792 patent is no later than its filing date, which is January 5, 1998. Although the Reeder application was filed, and thus privately known to Mr. Reeder, before the ’792 filing date, such private knowledge is not within the scope of § 102(a). See, e.g., Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“The statutory language, ‘known or used by others in this country’ (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)), means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public.”). Reeder was 8 The AIA took effect on March 18, 2013. Because the application from which the ’792 patent issued was filed before that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. § 102 are to its pre-AIA version. eventually patented of course but not until after the filing date of the ’792 patent. For these reasons, Reeder is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), which is the only provision under which the Petition asserted Reeder. Reeder presumptively is prior art to the ’792 patent under a different subsection of the statute, namely § 102(e). However, a reference that is prior art under only § 102(e) may not be asserted in a CBM patent review. Under the AIA, a Petition for a CBM patent review may challenge novelty or non-obviousness of a claim only on the basis of: (i) prior art that is described by section 102(a) . . . ; or (ii) prior art that— (I) discloses the invention more than 1 year before the date of the application for patent in the United States; and (II) would be described by section 102(a) . . . if the disclosure had been made by another before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent. AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). Because Petitioner has not shown that Reeder is prior art that may be asserted in a Petition for a CBM patent review, all of the grounds that rely on Reeder are denied.” slip op. at 15
§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites AlicePatents in suitUS 6,081,792
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.