- Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01601 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over both listed combinations; the contingent motion to amend is granted, replacing them with substitute claims 3 and 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with a qualification. We stated we would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner. Institution Dec. 19. We reasoned that our review of the ’199 patent and the cited prior art did not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’199 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. at 19– 20. However, we observed that the arguments presented by the parties did not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and therefore, we concluded that our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 20.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“device associated with a driver at all.” PO Resp. 39 (citing Valenti III Decl. ¶ 94). Patent Owner continues, “Petitioner’s expert acknowledges that Lalancette does not disclose the use of a mobile communication device associated with the driver.” Id. (citing Williams Dep. 128:14–129:25, 132:1–8). This is a misrepresentation of Mr. Williams’s testimony. He was not asked whether Lalancette “discloses” a mobile communication device; he was asked to agree whether Lalancette “identi[fies] the mobile computer as a mobile communication device.” Williams Dep 129:10–13. He explained his response later in his testimony: “In the passage where [Lalancette] references mobile computer, it doesn’t have a specific form factor discussion such as referencing Smartphones.” Id. at 132:5–8. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that this limitation is not met by Lalancette and we do not find the testimony of its expert, Dr. Valenti, credible or helpful. See Valenti III Decl. ¶¶ 94 (“Lalancette does not disclose a mobile device associated with a driver at all.”). As Petitioner points out, the argument supported by Dr. Valenti is an “attempt to improperly narrow the definition of a mobile device to only mean a smartphone of the driver.” Pet. Reply 24. We find that this argument and the supporting expert testimony are contradicted by the ’199 patent specification. See id, at 24–25 (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:10–11, defining mobile communication device broadly). We, therefore, find that the mobile computer disclosed in Lalancette meets the requirement of this claim limitation for a “mobile communication device associated with the driver.” We find for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates that Lalancette and Kemler meet limitation 1E.” slip op. at 45
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We declined to adopt this implicit construction (and the related construction “actively generate”). Institution Dec. 23. The claims themselves do not require the controller to “actively formulate” a new indicator for the same rider requesting a subsequent trip for that second trip, or that “a new signal be actively formulated each time a ride is dispatched,” as Patent Owner’s analysis asserts. See infra. Nor is it clear how this construction is supported by the ’199 patent specification. The ’199 patent describes the controller as “communicatively coupled to the transceiver.” Ex. 1001, 2:10–11. Further, “[t]he controller is adapted to generate a first signal to be transmitted by the transceiver to a mobile communication device.” Id. at 2:12–14. Elsewhere in the patent, “controller” is defined as “any type of computing device, computational circuit, or any type of processor or processing circuit capable of executing a series of instructions that are stored in a memory associated with a with the controller.” Id. at 3:6–10. The operation of the controller is also described as follows: “The controller 110 may generate a first signal (also referred to herein as a ‘notification signal’) that is transmitted via the transceiver 120 to the mobile communication device 150 associated with the driver D.” Id. at 5:14–17. Still further, “[t]he controller 110 generates four different notification signals, NOTIFICATION-A, NOTIFICATION-B, NOTIFICATION-C, and NOTIFICATION-D, to be transmitted by the transceiver 120 to a first DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150A, a second DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150B, a third DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150C, and a fourth DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150D, respectively.” Id. at 6:39–46. And further, “[i]n other embodiments, wherein the vehicle identification system 11 is utilized, an indicatory signal to the rider's mobile communication device may be generated by the controller 110.” Id. at 7:4–7. In none of these descriptions of the controller’s operation is there” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that the Petition and supporting expert testimony sufficiently demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Kemler and Kalanick with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 21–25. In addition to the reasons given supra, Petitioner explains that Kalanick’s “on-demand service system can also use location information from the driver’s device and/or transport information . . . to automatically determine the driver’s state or state of the transport service.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 29, 35). Petitioner explains that in Kalanick, “[w]hen a service application on the driver’s device determines that the transport service is to change state, such as to ‘arriving now,’ based on a determination that the driver is within a predetermined distance, the service application can trigger the indication device to output the user’s specific color.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 37). Thus, Kalanick’s system can “control the indication device to output the user’s color or other unique distinctive indicator based on the transport state.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 38). Petitioner explains that Kemler describes a central dispatching system in which one or more server computing devices of the centralized dispatching system may select a vehicle to be dispatched based upon the location of the client computing device. Id, (citing Ex. 1008, 10:3–33). Thus, Petitioner explains that Kemler, like Kalanick, “discloses ride-matching based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. Petitioner demonstrates that “a [person of ordinary skill] would find it obvious to modify Kalanick’s vehicle identification system in view of Kemler, at least because both systems disclose substantially similar ride-matching techniques based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. at 23–24. Petitioner also explains that a person of ordinary skill would “anticipate success of such a modification.” Id. at 24. Petitioner explains that “the controller in Kalanick is already in communication with the car and could easily send a signal to activate the display with the unique code.” Id. (citing Williams I Decl. ¶ 121). Petitioner recognizes that although both Kalanick and Kemler “focus” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,559,199 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,559,199 - Gaf Materials LLC v. Kirsch Research And Development, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 24, 2022 · IPR2021-00192 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–33 are unpatentable: claims 1, 8–12, and 19 are anticipated by Lou; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated Lou-based combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. The term “extrusion lamination” does not appear anywhere in the ’482 patent outside of issued claim 1, but our understanding is supported by the prosecution history of the ’482 patent. Claim 1 as originally filed in the application that issued as the ’482 patent recited, in relevant part, “a reinforcing scrim of interwoven strands for supporting tensile forces in multiple directions; and at least one layer of thermoplastic material affixed to a side of the reinforcing scrim for providing a weather-resistant barrier.” Ex. 1002 (’482 patent prosecution history), 33. In response to a rejection of the claims as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,523,357 to Peterson, describing a rubber mill calendering process, the applicant amended claim 1 to add the phrase “by extrusion lamination.” Id. at 71, 76. We find nothing to suggest that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that amendment to add a requirement of an additional layer of thermoplastic material, separate and apart from the “at least one layer of thermoplastic material” already recited in the original claim, to serve as a binder between the scrim and the original layer of thermoplastic material. The applicant explained in remarks accompanying the amendment, “Peterson fails to disclose forming a thermoplastic layer over the reinforcing scrim by an extrusion lamination process.” Id. at 71 (italics, underlining, and capitalization omitted). We, thus, find that the added phrase specifies how the recited “thermoplastic material” must be “affixed” to “the side of the reinforcing scrim,” but does not alter the recited function of the thermoplastic material, namely, “for providing a weather-resistant barrier.” Although the applicant’s remarks further state that “[c]ontrarily [to the rubber mill calendering process of Peterson], the roofing underlayment of the present invention is formed by an extrusion lamination process which bonds the various layers together, including the pre-formed films, reinforcement scrim, and slip-resistant material” (id.), claim 1 does not recite “pre-formed films” or “slip-resistant material”; such additional layers are recited in dependent claims 5 (“metallized film”) and 2 (“layer of slip-resistant material”), respectively (Ex. 1001, 6:29, 6:37). Looking finally to the extrinsic evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ experts and other exhibits filed by the parties, we find no persuasive evidence to show that the recitation of extrusion lamination requires an additional layer in addition to the recited scrim and the at least one layer of thermoplastic material affixed to a side of the scrim. In that regard, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s contentions, we are not persuaded that “extrusion lamination” and “extrusion coating” are mutually exclusive. Rather, we credit Mr. Kaczkowski’s testimony that extrusion coating would also be considered “extrusion lamination” if, for example, it “results in the extrudate being permanently bonded to the substrate.” Ex. 2020, 28:17–20. While Patent Owner argues that Mr. Kaczkowski’s statement “is nothing more than restatement of the extrusion coating process,” and “[t]o think otherwise would require believing that ‘extrusion coating’ involves a thermoplastic layer that is extruded, and thus coated, onto a substrate with the result being that it is not permanently bonded, i.e., it will delaminate from the substrate” (PO Sur-reply 5), we disagree with Patent Owner’s further contentions that “[s]uch a product makes no sense” and “[u]nder Petitioner’s theories, the [prior art] would not work” (id.). Although there could indeed be extrusion coating processes that would result in coatings that are not permanently bonded, it does not follow that the cited prior art used such processes. Further, although a laminate may be affixed to substrate by an adhesive or other binder, we find no persuasive evidence in the record that the binder must be a separate layer from the laminate.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“the “reinforcing scrim of interwoven strands” recited in claim 1 and Lou’s polypropylene polymer 2 to the recited “thermoplastic material.” Id. at 22– 23. Petitioner further contends that Lou discloses “affixing the thermoplastic material by extrusion lamination,” citing Lou’s disclosures that “[e]xtruder 20 supplies polypropylene polymer 2 through a slit orifice to deposit a thin continuous coating on the surface of sheet 1” and that coated sheet 3 is pressed by a calendaring nip formed by heated and unheated rolls. Id. at 23 (quoting Ex. 1005, 2:34–44) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19; Ex. 1005, 2:45– 49).” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Having considered the parties’ respective arguments, we find that Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the evidence of record, and we find that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings (including support both from the cited prior art and from Mr. Kaczkowski’s testimony) to combine the relevant teachings of Lou and Goodacre. We disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion it is insufficient that Mr. Kaczkowski opined that a person of ordinary skill would have evaluated the proposed combination based on the combined teachings of the asserted references. As the Supreme Court has explained, When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Patent Owner does not dispute Goodacre’s teachings or that combining those teachings with Lou would increase the tensile strength of Lou’s underlayment, but appears instead only to fault Mr. Kaczkowski for not determining whether those solutions would be less expensive than other alternatives. Such arguments are not persuasive. Although, as cited above, Petitioner alleges in the Petition that a skilled artisan would have recognized cross-lamination as “a simpler, less costly way to manufacture a nonwoven reinforcing scrim . . . consistent with Lou” (Pet. 37), we find that is only one among several reasons identified by Petitioner and Mr. Kaczkowski for the combination (see, e.g., id. at 34–35 (additionally identifying increased tensile strength as a well-known benefit of orienting polyolefin fabric)), each of which is independently persuasive.” slip op. at 53
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“Motion to Exclude. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 defines “hearsay” as a “a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying in the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is offering Dr. Reitman’s testimony for its truth. As Petitioner points out, Dr. Reitman’s testimony is presented in the Patent Owner Response in alleged support of Patent Owner’s argument. See Reply Mot. Excl. 1 (citing PO Resp. 22 (“Maureen Reitman recognized that ‘extrusion coating’ and ‘extrusion lamination’ were two different processes”; “[A]s Ds. [sic] Reitman recognized, a POSITA would understand ‘extrusion coating’ to be different than ‘extrusion lamination.’”)). Further, Rule 802 provides that hearsay is not admissible unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. Fed. R. Evid. 802. We agree with Petitioner that no exception or exclusion applies in this case. Mot. Excl. 1. Although, as Patent Owner contends, Federal Rule of Evidence 703 provides that “[a]n expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed,” and that “[i]f experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted,” we are not persuaded that opinions of others offered in litigation are the sort of “facts or data” that experts in the field of roofing underlayments would reasonably rely on in forming their own opinions.” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 6,308,482 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,308,482
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.