- Snap Inc. / Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01294 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held all challenged claims 1–25 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds and denied Patent Owner’s contingent motions to amend.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Snap proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’599 patent would have possessed “an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of content presentation and context-based systems/processes.” Snap Pet. 3 (citing Snap IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–32); Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 32. Snap further asserts that additional “education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that Snap’s proposed description of the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art aligned with the technology and claims of the ’599 patent. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7. For this proceeding, Patent Owner and Dr. Martin apply this level of skill in the art. Snap PO Resp. 11–12; Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 48–50. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the Decision on Institution, we adopt Snap’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Martin also provides consistent testimony on this issue. Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 81–82. Put simply, the Specification’s disclosure is that the set of rules for multiple content packages includes an expected response, and actions are then performed based on whether an expected response is or is not provided. Moreover, as Dr. Almeroth testifies, neither the claims nor the Specification use the term “unexpected response”—rather the Specification only identifies an “expected response.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 42. Accordingly, the disclosures in Table 1 and the Specification support Dr. Almeroth’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “the claimed ‘determin[e/ing]’ limitation requires what it plainly recites: ‘determin[e/ing] whether the received response matches the expected response[]’. . . . [i]t does not require an unexpected response not known to the system.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 51.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“time,’ ‘type of location,’ and other contextual information to automatically determine whether users would like to undertake learning activities.” Twitter Pet. Reply 18 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 1005, 2 3, 5 (“A check . . . to see if the information from the database corresponds with the location sensor (i.e. a check on whether the learner is really keeping his/her schedule).”), Fig.1; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1025 ¶ 49; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85, 157–162, 238, 435, 451, 517; Twitter Pet. 20–21). Accordingly, the evidence of record support that Yau teaches that context triggers the display of a content piece, such as an exercise/test/quiz. Patent Owner also argues that Twitter asserts that PALLES’ content piece is “‘exercise[s],’ ‘test[s],’ and/or ‘MP Quiz[zes],’” but also contends that Yau’s “formal assessment” is the claimed content piece. Twitter PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that “Twitter points back to its limitation 12.1 PALLAS evidence for the purported ‘content piece’” and also does not mention Yau for limitation 12.5 and 12.6 and “only conclusorily states that ‘PALLAS in view of Yau renders obvious triggering an exercise/test/quiz.’” Id. Patent Owner’s arguments overlook Twitter’s assertion, with Dr. Turnbull’s supporting testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Yau’s formal assessments are “tests with answers for comparing against learner’s responses to assess knowledge/performance/skill (contrasting with ‘un-assessed’ exercises whose responses are unchecked).” Twitter Pet. 43; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶ 154. Further, Patent Owner overlooks Petitioner’s assertion that it is implementing PALLAS’s context-triggerbased content display using Yau’s teachings of displaying assessments/questions based on context. Twitter Pet. 43. Patent Owner also asserts that in the PALLAS-Yau combination, Twitter does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art in the manner Petitioner alleges. Twitter PO Resp. 42. Patent Owner argues that “PALLAS says nothing about forcing quizzes, tests, or exercises on its users without the users asking for such exercises,” and a person of skill would understand that the combined system still requires that a student select a learning activity and that PALLAS’s system should be unobtrusive because learners “may have small time slots to engage in learning.” Id. (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 168; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1004, 54). Patent Owner further contends that “Twitter’s conclusory, hindsight-driven statements” do not suffice and PALLAS teaches away from the modifications suggested by Twitter. Id. at 42–43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 144). Patent Owner argues that because a learner may not have time to complete a test, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to change PALLAS to trigger exercises/tests/quizzes based on location or time. Id. at 43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 142–144). The evidence of record does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 115
- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“2. Enlarging Scope of Claims Patent Owner asserts that it proposes narrowing limitations in direct response to the grounds of unpatentability involved in this proceeding. See, e.g., Snap Mot. 3–4. Facebook argues Patent Owner is “improperly attempting to enlarge the scope of the original claims.” Facebook Pet. Opp. 1. Facebook asserts, “[i]f ‘an expected response’ means one or more expected responses, therefore, determining whether the received response ‘matches the expected response’ means that the received response must match [all of] the one or more previously-recited expected responses in the content package.” Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). Facebook then argues “the term ‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response,’” because “an ‘expected response’ does not include any conceivable or possible response; it is a response that is expected.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis omitted). Twitter argues that “‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response’ because a ‘predefined response’ can include any possible response as long as that response has been somehow defined in advance.” Twitter Pet. Opp. 2. We consider the amendments in view of the claim as a whole. Although the term “one predefined response” may be broader than “an expected response,” we also consider the amended portion “wherein the received response is expected if the received response matches one or more of the at least one predefined response,” and “the received response is unexpected if the received response does not match any of the at least one predefined response.” Unless the response had been predefined within the content package, any “received response” could not be considered “expected” under the claims, and the additional clause requires a match of the response with the predefined response to be deemed “expected.” This equates to an equivalent scope to the original claim. This is consistent with Dr. Martin’s testimony, which we credit, that he is not aware of a situation where the substitute but not original claims are infringed because “[t]he substitute claims would only be satisfied when a ‘predefined response’ in the substitute claims is an ‘expected response’ in the original claims.” Facebook IPR, Ex. 2023 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 136
Patent outcomesUS 8,489,599 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,489,599 - 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 - Cambridge Associates, LLC v. Capital DynamicsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2015 · CBM2014-00079 · APJ Donna M Praiss · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract mathematical correlation implemented with generic computer functions.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that Digitech is instructive guidance concerning claims to “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. at 595) (concluding such claims are ineligible subject matter). Like the ’196 patent claims, the process claim in Digitech did not recite expressly mathematical formulae or equations. It claimed, in prose, generating two data sets by taking existing information, such as measured chromatic stimuli, spatial stimuli, and device response characteristic functions, and organizing the information into a new form called a device profile. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350–51. The method claim was determined to be an abstract idea “because it describes a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations and is not tied to a specific structure or machine.” Id. at 1350. The absence of expressly recited mathematical formulae or equations in the claim carried no significance in determining whether the claims as a whole were directed to the abstract idea. See also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57 (noting that no special significance was given to the fact that one of the claims in Bilski reduced hedging to a mathematical formula). In sum, because we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims involve determining a mathematical correlation, like the claims in Digitech, we conclude that the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is met for claims 1–17.” slip op. at 12
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“The fact that a claim relies on a method that is implemented on a computer does not, by itself, demonstrate that the claim is patent eligible. Rather, a challenged claim, properly construed, must incorporate enough meaningful limitations to ensure that what is claimed is more than just an abstract idea, and is not a mere “drafting effort designed to monopolize [an abstract idea] itself.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. In order for a machine to impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of a method claim, it must play “a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Claims that recite a method of doing business on a computer, and do no more than merely recite the use of the computer for its ordinary function of performing repetitive calculations, are not patent eligible. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding computer used for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculation, does not impose a meaningful claim limitation). We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the extent to which a computer aids the performance of the claimed invention is no more than the ordinary function of common computer software programs, such as the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet used by Patent Owner’s expert. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1012, 153:15–154:21). Patent Owner’s argument that the computer technology required by the ’196 patent claims “is integral to meeting the requirements of accuracy, precision and timeliness” (PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 96)) focuses on a specific commercial application of the patent claims “[i]n the private equity world” (id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 86–95)). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments because they presume particular mathematical computation methods not required by the claims, and reinforce that the nature of the invention is a patent ineligible mathematical algorithm. For example, Patent Owner contends that when presented with a problem to solve at his deposition, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Robinson, inaccurately computed a real rate of return on an investment because he used quarterly compounding rather than daily compounding. Ex. 2004 ¶ 87. According to Mr. Reyes, Patent Owner’s expert, “daily cashflow (as opposed to monthly or quarterly) has been recognized as a requisite compounding frequency as far back as the 1960s.” Id. at ¶ 91. Such mathematical computations, even if required by the claims, are not sufficient to transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter.” slip op. at 15
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–17 of the ’196 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because our determination does not rely on the deposition testimony subject to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude, we dismiss the motion as moot.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyOther
“We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the extent to which a computer aids the performance of the claimed invention is no more than the ordinary function of common computer software programs, such as the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet used by Patent Owner’s expert. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1012, 153:15–154:21). Patent Owner’s argument that the computer technology required by the ’196 patent claims “is integral to meeting the requirements of accuracy, precision and timeliness” (PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 96)) focuses on a specific commercial application of the patent claims “[i]n the private equity world” (id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 86–95)). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments because they presume particular mathematical computation methods not required by the claims, and reinforce that the nature of the invention is a patent ineligible mathematical algorithm. For example, Patent Owner contends that when presented with a problem to solve at his deposition, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Robinson, inaccurately computed a real rate of return on an investment because he used quarterly compounding rather than daily compounding. Ex. 2004 ¶ 87. According to Mr. Reyes, Patent Owner’s expert, “daily cashflow (as opposed to monthly or quarterly) has been recognized as a requisite compounding frequency as far back as the 1960s.” Id. at ¶ 91. Such mathematical computations, even if required by the claims, are not sufficient to transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,698,196 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,698,196
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.