- Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00034 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 17–20 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 14–16 are not shown unpatentable because the cited art does not teach logic configured to determine concurrent failure probability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s implicit construction that would require “selecting an entity pair from” all of the entity pairs of “said plurality of transport entities.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments addressing the claim language, the plain language of claim 1 does not require the selection to be from all of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. The plain language of claim 1 also does not preclude the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. Rather, dependent claim 9, through its dependence on claims 1 and 4, explicitly allows for the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities. Patent Owner’s arguments advocate for the importation of limitations from the ’821 Patent Specification into the claim––namely the disclosure that all entity pairs of transport entities examined in step 220 of Figure 2 are input to the entity pair selection step 230. See PO Sur-reply 4. It is well settled that it is improper to read an extraneous limitation into a claim from the specification. See e.g., Commark Comm’s Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.2d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An extraneous limitation is “a limitation read into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 849 F.2d at 1433. Accordingly, we construe “selecting an entity pair from said plurality of transport entities based at least upon said overall cost” according to its plain meaning, the scope of which includes selecting an entity pair from all or a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not construe “working entity” and “protection entity” in order to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Other Claim Terms and Phrases As demonstrated in our analysis below, we need not construe any other claim terms or phrases to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Realtime, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Patent Owner Response.” PO Resp. 25. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by declaration testimony and is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’821 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the entire record and after having considered Petitioner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard, and Dr. Houh’s testimony (Ex. 1003) as well as Patent Owner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard and Mr. Gomez’s testimony, we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Doshi with Guichard’s teachings of reoptimization of a LSP path triggered by an network change. See Pet. 20–22, 40–45; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he results of the combination would have been predictable and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success since Doshi and Guichard both address the same technology.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in reoptimizing Doshi’s LSP pair selection because Guichard provides significant implementation details, including when to trigger reoptimization evaluations and how to ‘avoid network instabilities.’” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1006, 5). Petitioner asserts that a reasonable expectation of success is evidenced by other skilled artisans that reoptimized similar systems. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1009, 136; Ex. 1010, 1; Ex. 1023, 34; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 27–33, claim 19; Ex. 1035 ¶ 24). In support, Petitioner contends that “the combination would be within a POSITA’s skillset since Doshi already sets forth the calculation and selection techniques that would be utilized during the reoptimization evaluation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “since Doshi is already ‘monitoring and updating . . . network topology’ . . . event-based reoptimization evaluation per Guichard, would be directly applicable.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 270–281).” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,830,821 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,830,821 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00402 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 17–20 are unpatentable over the Doshi and Guichard grounds; claims 14–16 were not shown unpatentable over Doshi, Guichard, and Xu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“require “selecting an entity pair from” all of the entity pairs of “said plurality of transport entities.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments addressing the claim language, the plain language of claim 1 does not require the selection to be from all of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. The plain language of claim 1 also does not preclude the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. Rather, dependent claim 9, through its dependence on claims 1 and 4, explicitly allows for the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities. Patent Owner’s arguments advocate for the importation of limitations from the ’821 Patent Specification into the claim––namely the disclosure that all entity pairs of transport entities examined in step 220 of Figure 2 are input to the entity pair selection step 230. See PO Sur-reply 4. It is well settled that it is improper to read an extraneous limitation into a claim from the specification. See e.g., Commark Comm’s Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.2d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An extraneous limitation is “a limitation read into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 849 F.2d at 1433. Accordingly, we construe “selecting an entity pair from said plurality of transport entities based at least upon said overall cost” according to its plain meaning, the scope of which includes selecting an entity pair from all or a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not construe “working entity” and “protection entity” in order to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Other Claim Terms and Phrases As demonstrated in our analysis below, we need not construe any other claim terms or phrases to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Realtime, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Patent Owner Response.” PO Resp. 25. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by declaration testimony and is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’821 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the entire record and after having considered Petitioner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard, and Dr. Houh’s testimony (Ex. 1003) as well as Patent Owner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard and Mr. Gomez’s testimony, we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Doshi with Guichard’s teachings of reoptimization of a LSP path triggered by an network change. See Pet. 20–22, 40–45; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he results of the combination would have been predictable and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success since Doshi and Guichard both address the same technology.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in reoptimizing Doshi’s LSP pair selection because Guichard provides significant implementation details, including when to trigger reoptimization evaluations and how to ‘avoid network instabilities.’” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1006, 5). Petitioner asserts that a reasonable expectation of success is evidenced by other skilled artisans that reoptimized similar systems. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1009, 136; Ex. 1010, 1; Ex. 1023, 34; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 27–33, claim 19; Ex. 1035 ¶ 24). In support, Petitioner contends that “the combination would be within a POSITA’s skillset since Doshi already sets forth the calculation and selection techniques that would be utilized during the reoptimization evaluation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “since Doshi is already ‘monitoring and updating . . . network topology’ . . . event-based reoptimization evaluation per Guichard, would be directly applicable.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 270–281).” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,830,821 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,830,821 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00026 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–31 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Bruckman; the Board did not reach the additional grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the ’740 Patent Specification disavows “any configurations where the user port is fixedly assigned to a specific backplane trace” from the full scope of the claim. Patent Owner’s citations to disclosures in the ’740 Patent Specification do not disparage the prior art, but merely contrast the configurations of the user ports and backplane traces disclosed in the ’740 Patent to “some known network element configurations” and “some conventional network elements.” See Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:4, 5:13–21. We find that the comparison of the disclosed configurations of user ports and backplane traces to that of the prior art in the ’740 Patent Specification does not constitute a clear disavowal of the first physical link fixedly assigned to the second physical link. See Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[C]omparing and contrasting the present technique to that of the prior art does not ‘rise to the level of a clear disavowal’ of claim scope.”). Accordingly, we decline to construe “selecting, in a single computation based on at least one of the frame attributes, a first physical link out of the first group and a second physical link out of the second group” as requiring “the first physical link is not fixedly assigned to the second words of the claim their ordinary and customary meanings.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not construe “interface module.” See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “(‘POSITA’) in April 2006 would have had a working knowledge of computer networking, including such commonly used technologies as Ethernet and the internet protocol / transmission control protocol (TCP/IP) suite.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7–9). Petitioner further asserts that “[a] POSITA would two years of professional experience in the field of communication networks, including link aggregation in communication networks.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7–9). “For purposes of this Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 21. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by declaration testimony and is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’740 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“1 Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR20240-00034, which were granted. Accordingly, Juniper Networks, Inc has been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding.” slip op. at 1
Patent outcomesUS 7,545,740 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,545,740 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00401 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–31 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Bruckman; the Board did not reach the additional grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the ’740 Patent Specification disavows “any configurations where the user port is fixedly assigned to a specific backplane trace” from the full scope of the claim. Patent Owner’s citations to disclosures in the ’740 Patent Specification do not disparage the prior art, but merely contrast the configurations of the user ports and backplane traces disclosed in the ’740 Patent to “some known network element configurations” and “some conventional network elements.” See Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:4, 5:13–21. We find that the comparison of the disclosed configurations of user ports and backplane traces to that of the prior art in the ’740 Patent Specification does not constitute a clear disavowal of the first physical link fixedly assigned to the second physical link. See Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[C]omparing and contrasting the present technique to that of the prior art does not ‘rise to the level of a clear disavowal’ of claim scope.”). Accordingly, we decline to construe “selecting, in a single computation based on at least one of the frame attributes, a first physical link out of the first group and a second physical link out of the second group” as requiring “the first physical link is not fixedly assigned to the second words of the claim their ordinary and customary meanings.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“For the purpose of resolving the controversy before us, we need not construe the phrase “arranged in parallel.” We do not agree with either of the proposed constructions for that seek to define “arranged in parallel” in relation to “relevant endpoints,” “a common relevant endpoint,” “a second relevant endpoint,” or “between a user node and a communication network.” Claim 1 already includes a description of endpoints for the second group of second physical links arranged in parallel: “each of the one or more interface modules” and “a communication network” because claim 1 recites “coupling each of the one or more interface modules to a communication network using a second group of second physical links arranged in parallel.” Ex. 1001, 11:4–6. Independent claims 4, 5, 13, 17, 19, 20, and 28 each recite identical or similar limitations. See Ex. 1001, 11:28–15:28. Other Claim Terms and Phrases As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not construe any other claim terms or phrases. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“C. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) if in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).6 6 The parties do not present evidence or arguments regarding secondary considerations.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We also do not agree with Patent Owner’s substantive arguments. We agree with Petitioner that, in the flow of data from the core network to the network nodes 24, 26, 28 in Bruckman, there is a selection of a trace 52 out of the group of four traces 52 in order to send data to the appropriate line card 34, link 30, and node 24, 26, 28. We have reviewed Petitioner’s analysis addressing dependent claim 11 (see Pet. 58–63) and find that this selecting a trace 52 out of the group traces 52. For these same reasons, we also do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “given that Bruckman discloses a system in which the trace is ‘determined’—and not selected—by the selection of a link 30, a POSITA would understand that Bruckman does not disclose the claimed selections in ‘a single computation.’” PO Resp. 53. More particularly, the analysis addressing claim 11, cited by Petitioner, provides additional explanation that Bruckman’s equipment 22 is a two-level demultiplexer structure with concentrators 50 acting as a first level demultiplexer to select one of four links 30 and switching core 40 acting as a second-level demultiplexer by distributing data frames from the input channel among four separate traces 52. See Pet. 58–59 (reproducing Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (with Petitioner’s added annotations); citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 137; Pet. 23–27). The cited analysis further explains that Bruckman’s equipment 22 shown in Figure 2 includes a control line from controller 42 to the switching core 40 and control lines to each of the concentrators 50. See Pet. 59–60 (reproducing Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (with Petitioner’s added annotations); citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 138). According to Petitioner, “[g]iven this well-known, two-level structure, a POSITA would have found it obvious for Bruckman’s [e]quipment 22 to be controlled in a manner consistent with well-known two-level demultiplexer control techniques.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 138). The cited analysis further explains that “[b]ecause each of the demultiplexing devices (switching core 40 and concentrators 50) in [Bruckman’s] Fig. 2 has one input and four outputs, a POSITA would have found it obvious to control each with a two-bit command signal.” Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 139). According to Petitioner, switching core (second-level demultiplexer) to select a trace 52. A different two-bit signal would be used to control the concentrators (first-level demultiplexers) to select a link 30, consistent with known techniques for controlling two-level demultiplexers. Such techniques . . . would have been in the background knowledge of a POSITA. Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 139; Pet. 33); see Pet. 62–63 (reproducing Ex. 1007, Fig. 5.17(a) (with Petitioner’s annotations added); citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 139–141).” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 7,545,740 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,545,740 - PTAB · Oct 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00728 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Taniguchi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018). For the reasons below, we determine the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’430 patent, and we institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“The ’430 patent describes its field of endeavor as inductor design in a VCO. Ex. 1001, 1:19–22. Patent Owner does not specifically state what Patent Owner considers the field of endeavor of the ’430 patent to be, but Patent Owner highlights portions of the ’430 patent specification that describe implementations on a single semiconductor chip. Prelim. Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:59–61). Even though portions of the ’430 patent refer to semiconductor die or chip applications (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:27–61), neither the specification nor the claims are limited to such specific applications. Also, Patent Owner acknowledges a relatively broad field of endeavor with its proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, arguing that a person of ordinary skill would have had “two years of experience working in the wireless communications industry.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16. Thus, on the present record, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that the ’430 patent’s field of endeavor is inductor design. See Prelim. Reply 1–2. Similarly, although parts of Taniguchi describe an RFID system, on the current record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill would understand Taniguchi’s teachings to be applicable to the design of inductors generally. See Prelim. Reply 4–5. Among other things, on the present record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that the electromagnetic field created by a structure is not dependent upon it being labeled an antenna or an inductor. Prelim. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–93), 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 69–73, 138–166, 203). Further, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that Taniguchi teaches away from the claimed invention; notwithstanding the reference’s discussion of specific applications in RFID systems, the structures depicted and described in Taniguchi are similar to those described and claimed in the ’430 patent, as discussed further below. Notably, the ’430 patent attributes many of the characteristics of the EM field to the symmetrical, 8-shaped inductor having current flowing in opposite directions in each of the inductor’s loops (Ex. 1001, 4:5–32), which is structurally similar to the structures depicted in Taniguchi, e.g. Figures 3, 7, and 8.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“¶¶ 85–93), 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 69–73, 138–166, 203). Further, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that Taniguchi teaches away from the claimed invention; notwithstanding the reference’s discussion of specific applications in RFID systems, the structures depicted and described in Taniguchi are similar to those described and claimed in the ’430 patent, as discussed further below. Notably, the ’430 patent attributes many of the characteristics of the EM field to the symmetrical, 8-shaped inductor having current flowing in opposite directions in each of the inductor’s loops (Ex. 1001, 4:5–32), which is structurally similar to the structures depicted in Taniguchi, e.g. Figures 3, 7, and 8. Next, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that Taniguchi does not teach or suggest a first inductor having a reduced far field. See Prelim. Resp. 23–26. As cited by Petitioner (Pet. 15–16), Taniguchi states that the “remote electromagnetic-field intensity” is suppressed with its two-loop 8- shaped antenna (e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 94). Similarly, we are currently persuaded that Taniguchi teaches or suggests that the magnetic field emanating from the second loop tends to cancel the magnetic field emanating from the first loop as a result of the current flowing through the loops in opposite directions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116, 122, 123; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 55–57, 73–75. At this stage, Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary (e.g., Prelim. Resp. 26– 27) do not substantively undermine Taniguchi’s teachings regarding suppression of the “remote” electromagnetic field. See Ex. 1001, 4:5–27 (describing characteristics of the EM field emanating from a symmetrical, single-turn, 8-shaped structure).” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would have had “a master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or similar discipline and at least two years’ experience in designing integrated circuits or inductors or a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a similar discipline and at least four years’ experience in designing integrated circuits or inductors.” Pet. 2–3. Petitioner also states that additional education might compensate for less experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill and states that a person of ordinary skill “would have had a bachelor’s 6 US 2005/0077992 A1; published Apr. 14, 2005. Ex. 1008. 7 US 2001/0030591 A1; published Oct. 18, 2001. Ex. 1009. 8 Brooks, Douglas, “Signal Integrity Issues and Printed Circuit Board Design,” Prentice Hall Modern Semiconductor Design Series (2003). Ex. 1010. degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a similar discipline, and either a master’s degree in one of these fields of study or a minimum of two years of experience working in the wireless communications industry.” Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 24). On the current record, Patent Owner’s reference to “experience working in the wireless communications industry” (Prelim. Resp. 16; Ex. 2002 ¶ 24) appears potentially overbroad, as compared to Petitioner’s reference to “experience in designing integrated circuits or inductors” (Pet. 2–3), which appears to better reflect the subject of the ’430 patent and asserted prior art. At this stage, we apply Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but our Decision would not change under Patent Owner’s articulation. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 25 (Dr. Prucnal stating that his opinions would not change under Petitioner’s proposed articulation).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,151,430 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2024 · IPR2023-00714 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–16, 18–22, and 24–26 are unpatentable as obvious over Vink and Patrick, with or without AAPA; claims 6, 17, and 23 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, or approximately two years of experience working in the field of information technology and networking . . . . Lack of professional experience can be substituted by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–60). “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 19. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions addressed in the ’904 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues “that ‘subscriber lines’ should be construed as ‘communication lines to users of subscription-based network services.’” Id. Petitioner does not dispute this construction directly, but rather argues that no construction is necessary. Reply 6. We determine that no terms need to be construed. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Here however, we have found that it was known to connect LANs to external networks. See Ex. 1014, 6:23–28, Fig. 1; Ex. 1015, 1:6–9; Ex. 1016, 1:22–25; Ex. 1017, 1:7–11. We further agree with Petitioner’s uncontested point that “[t]echniques to further allow the communication system to access external networks by connecting the master to an external network were well-known in the art, as evidenced by Patrick and/or AAPA.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–88). The Petition focusses on combining the “communication systems” of Vink, Patrick and/or AAPA, as opposed to relying on a particular type of LAN. Thus, in contrast to Forest Lab’ys, we determine that the general or “generic” benefit of providing “access to a wider array of information,” where it was already known to provide external network access (e.g., the internet) to LANs,5 does provide a motivation to combine Vink and Patrick, with or without AAPA. See Intel Corp. v. Pact XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“There is a motivation to combine when a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.’” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 417)).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also argues that Vink “teaches against” hierarchical addressing because “doing so would eliminate the purported advantages associated with using a non-hierarchical system.” PO Resp. 36 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 69 (Patent Owner’s declarant making the same statement)). Patent Owner does not further discuss the reasoning behind this statement, identify the “purported advantages,” or even identify the relevant disclosure relied on in Vink. We decline to speculate as to Patent Owner’s position in this regard. We further note that “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,680,904 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,680,904 - Vicor Corporation v. Delta Electronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00706 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“The Board has indicated that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 59 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).6 But “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. Here, although there is overlap in the prior art asserted, there are clear differences in the limitations in the respective claim sets in each case, which requires different analysis. The issues related to a potentially different priority date for claims in the -715 case also support the need for two petitions. Additionally, under these circumstances, it is not apparent there has been a substantial benefit afforded to Petitioner by filing two petitions. Thus, we determine that Petitioner’s filing of two parallel petitions does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution in this particular case.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art and its definition appears to be similar to that of Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 10. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’534 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “[t]he invalidity issues raised in this Petition may be resolved without any formal claim construction.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner offers no claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,877,534 - Vicor Corporation v. Delta Electronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00715 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Vicor had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“The Board has indicated that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 59 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).7 But “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. Here, although there is overlap in the prior art asserted, there are clear differences in the limitations in the respective claim sets in each case, which requires different analysis. The issues related to a potentially different priority date for claims in this case also support the need for two petitions.8 Additionally, under these circumstances, it is not apparent there has been a substantial benefit afforded to Petitioner by filing two petitions. Thus, we determine that Petitioner’s filing of two parallel petitions does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution in this particular case.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in power engineering” as of the date of the invention and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–48). 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 8 We address the merits of the priority issue below. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art and its definition appears to be similar to that of Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 9. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’534 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “[t]he invalidity issues raised in this Petition may be resolved without any formal claim construction.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner offers no claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 9. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,877,534 - PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00705 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6 under all five grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Zeng-014 and Vinciarelli-218.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the first electronic component’ for the first connection part is a structural feature or relationship.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 52–54). Here, claim 1 requires a structure in which the first connection part comprises a first terminal at one end coupled to a surface of a carrier such as a circuit board, and a second terminal at the other end attached to a surface of the first component, such that the first connection part has mechanical support of the first electronic component. See Ex. 1001, 15:31–37. We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “this claim language connotes sufficient structural characteristics that preclude a product-by-process.” Prelim. Resp. 9.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“B. Principles of Law To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). There is no requirement that the prior art must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to teach or disclose that claim element. Identity of terminology is not required for a claim element to be anticipated by the prior art without resorting to obviousness. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The Federal Circuit has repeatedly warned that there has to be evidence of “glue” to make this specific combination, and not just the use of the claim as the roadmap for making the combination of prior art. See, e.g., InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Dr. Yanco’s testimony was nothing more than impermissible hindsight; she opined that all of the elements of the claims disparately existed in the prior art, but failed to provide the glue to combine these references.”). Here, Petitioner’s alleged motivations to modify the modules Vinciarelli-218 to use the “connection part by curving a piece of metal against an electronic component” of Zeng-014 (Pet. 69) reflect impermissible hindsight bias.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,819,263 - Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 25, 2024 · IPR2022-01223 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss under § 103 because the evidence did not establish multiplexing signals.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“communication device for multiplexing signals.” Ex. 1001, 12:2–3 (emphasis added). The language in the preamble does not support adopting Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “multiplexing” to mean that “the connections may be used simultaneously or sequentially for combining multiple data paths into a single path,” because signals are being multiplexed, not connections or data paths. Pet. Reply 10. No connection is recited in the preamble with regard to multiplexing.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 (file history of the ’075 patent), 12; Ex. 2003 (Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief from related litigation), 40–41; Ex. 2023 (Claim Construction Order from related litigation), 7). “Petitioner does not dispute that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting.” Pet. Reply 9 (citing PO Resp. 9–10; Ex. 2003, 45–46). Based on the full record, we adopt the parties’ agreement that the preamble is limiting. See also Ex. 2003, 45–46; Ex. 2023, 7.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“show by a preponderance of the evidence that Yegoshin teaches or would have been understood to reasonably suggest “multiplexing signals” and that Bernard “includes or operates as a multiplexer for combining the data packets.” See Pet. 32–40. Because Petitioner does not show multiplexing signals in any of the asserted references, Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that its proposed combination of Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss would have rendered obvious “[a]n IP-enabled communication device for multiplexing signals,” as recited by claim 1. Also, because Petitioner fails to show Yegoshin teaches or would have been understood to reasonably suggest multiplexed signals and fails to show that Bernard “includes or operates as a multiplexer for combining the data packets,” Petitioner’s asserted motivation to modify Yegoshin in view of Bernard for “multiplexing signals” lacks rational underpinning. Weighing the underlying factual determinations, a preponderance of the evidence does not persuade us that claim 1 of the ’075 patent is unpatentable over Yegoshin, Bernard, Johnston, and Preiss. Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361.” slip op. at 44
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We do not credit Petitioner’s cited testimonial evidence because, for the reasons above, Yegoshin and the full record do not support it. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79, 80. We, instead, credit Patent Owner’s cited testimonial evidence because Yegoshin and the full record better support it. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 50, 51, 55–56, 58–61; see also Ex. 2025, 65:19–66:4.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,319,075 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,319,075
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.