• Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3 and 11 were not shown unpatentable, and claim 7 was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification currently before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For purposes of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” See Pet. 8. In addition, we note that we agree with Patent Owner’s statement that the distinction between the parties’ proposals is not material to any dispute before us and we find that our determinations would be the same under either definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded that Dr. van der Weide’s cited testimony is of a nature that should lead us to give his testimony no weight. We note that Patent Owner did not move to strike or exclude Dr. van der Weide’s testimony. When considering credibility and weight of evidence below, we consider Dr. van der Weide’s testimony as a whole as well as all other evidence of record and accord it the appropriate weight.” slip op. at 7

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

    “provide an express construction of the full breadth of a claim term. “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms ... that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As such, we proceed in line with Federal Circuit case law, which “prescribes—deciding only the issues necessary to resolve the dispute before it.” Nichia Corp. v. DSS, Inc., No. 2022-1704, 2023 WL 7211097, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 2, 2023) (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). The Federal Circuit has long recognized that “[c]laim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope” and that claim construction may be required in an obviousness context “when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution in order to determine obviousness.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In order to determine whether Petitioner’s obviousness grounds meet their required burden of proof, we need not expressly state the full scope of this claim term. Thus, we are within our authority to proffer a construction that determines the scope of a claim term in a manner sufficient to determine whether the asserted art teaches the claim. In other words, there may be other ways to meet the disputed limitation, but for the purposes of our Decision, it is proper to expressly determine a claim term’s scope only as much as is required to resolve the disputed issues before us.” slip op. at 17

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

    “the invention(s), but rather as examples of some of the embodiments.” Id. at 25:65–26:1; see also id. at 6:18–20 (embodiments “should be construed as illustrative rather than limiting”), 5:22–24 (“non-limiting example”). The Federal Circuit has noted that “[e]mbodiments in the specification—even if there is only one embodiment—cannot limit the scope of the claims absent the patentee’s ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., 25 F.4th 960, 967 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Hill- Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). After reviewing the complete record, we see no such manifest exclusion or restriction in the ’240 patent specification. We decline Patent Owner’s request to limit the claims to the described single-frequency embodiments. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. We need not provide further express construction of this claim language for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,165,240 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,165,240
• PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 8–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2–7 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not establish motivation to combine for their error-processing limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent field” and “two years of prior experience with image capturing/scanning technology, involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 45). Petitioner further asserts that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (Inst. Dec. 16), and neither party alleges that a different level of ordinary skill should be applied in this proceeding (see PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply). In this Decision, we again adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner. We are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of and the asserted prior art. Accord Inst. Dec. 15–16.” slip op. at 11

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

    “In the Petition, Petitioner states that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms or phrases (Pet. 12–14), but for two phrases in claim 1, Petitioner specifically argues that the prior art teaches or suggests the phrase under each of two alternate meanings (id. at 34–35, 37). In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner’s primary understanding of these phrases and, as a result, did not reach the alternative contentions. Inst. Dec. 33 n.18, 38 n.21. At trial, Patent Owner states that claim construction is unnecessary to resolve the issues disputed in this proceeding. PO Resp. 6; Tr. 46:4–16. Petitioner agrees, but contends that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding dependent claim 3 are premised on a narrowing construction of one of its terms. Tr. 15:4–16:2. Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms in that claim should apply. Id. at 46:12–16. We agree that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad 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 12

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “motivated to add error processing to Garcia’s mobile phone so that it could address errors before transmitting the check image in order “to avoid wasting communications resources and adding delays.” Pet. 42. But, Petitioner does not support this rationale with a persuasive explanation or evidence. Indeed, we assume that Petitioner’s theory is that the error checking at the mobile device would have conserved bandwidth and reduced delay because it would have allowed the mobile device to identify some unsuitable images before they were sent to the payee bank; however, the Petition does not actually include an explanation to this effect. Rather, it simply states that an ordinary artisan would have known that mobile telephone networks (such as that used by Garcia) “are bandwidth and resource-constrained, and that communications over such networks takes time.” Id.; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 115. However, all networks have bandwidth and resource constraints, and all communications take time, and neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry explain why these considerations would have been relevant to an ordinary artisan implementing Garcia. Indeed, the Petition next asserts that “Byrne provides the requisite solution to this problem” (Pet. 42), but neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry identify any problem. For example, Dr. Mowry does not testify that an ordinary artisan would have expected Garcia’s system to consume excessive bandwidth or incur for claim 2). In addition, Petitioner recognizes that the verification process is performed by the payee bank in Garcia, yet does not address the fact that its proposal would apparently shift a portion of the verification process to the mobile phone. See Pet. 40–44. Dr. Mowry’s trial testimony casts further doubt on Petitioner’s rationale for this claim. Dr. Mowry testifies that conserving bandwidth would “potentially” have been one of the goals of an ordinary artisan “depend[ing] on how precious their resource is.” Ex. 2020, 68:12–24. But Dr. Mowry “wouldn’t necessarily characterize [Garcia] as bandwidth intensive.” Id. at 76:13–23. In addition, he disagreed that “in the Garcia system, the motivation would have been to shift it to the client side for the verification,” noting simply that “[t]here are tradeoffs” associated with doing the verification processing on either the client or the server. Id. at 241:22– 242:13. Petitioner attempts to limit the impact of Dr. Mowry’s answers (Pet. Reply 16); however, the fact remains that Petitioner has the burden of proof, and it does not identify persuasive evidence to support its contention. Petitioner’s Reply asserts that these considerations were “particularly important in 2006, when 3G bandwidth was at a premium” (id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶ 49)), but neither Petitioner nor Dr. Mowry provide analysis or evidence to support this conclusory assertion. Moreover, the Petition also fails to address whether the proposed combination would have, in fact, conserved communications resources or reduced delays. In Petitioner’s proposed combination, Byrne’s thin client application would be downloaded to Garcia’s mobile phone at each use (which would require communication resources and incur latency), but the Petition fails to address whether the net result of the proposed combination 148:1 (Dr. Mowry agreeing that the impact of downloading the thin client is not discussed in his report). Moreover, Garcia touts the “speed” of its process, stating that its “immediate processing . . . allows the immediate availability in the user’s account” (Ex. 1003, 7:18–8:3), which indicates that an ordinary artisan would not have perceived a problematic delay in Garcia’s system. Petitioner’s attempt to shift the burden to Patent Owner to determine whether or not its purported benefits would be realized (see Pet. Reply 17) is unavailing. In its Reply, Petitioner cites testimony from Dr. Mowry (see Ex. 1029 ¶ 37), but it simply compares the size of a compressed image with the size of a “large” application. This evidence does not outweigh the other evidence above, and it was submitted too late to remedy the Petition. See supra § II.A.; see also Trial Practice Guide 73 (explaining that a petitioner “may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability”). Finally, on this record, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 60

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application by downloading, onto the mobile device, a thin client application, as disclosed by Byrne. See Pet. 19–25. Byrne touts the benefits of downloading a thin client rather than storing an application on a user’s device (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 45– 46; see also id. ¶¶ 47–48), and Dr. Mowry testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood downloading a thin client to be a well-known way of distributing software in the relevant time period and suited for mobile devices (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–65, 70). In addition, Dr. Mowry testifies that a thin client improves security and ease of software maintenance. Id. ¶ 65 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 46–47); see also Ex. 1033, 140:11–141:2 (Dr. Creusere agreeing that thin clients “dramatically simplif[y]” software maintenance), 143:13–20 (agreeing that security is important for financial data); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–21 (evidence that the general background knowledge in the art identifies security as a concern for remote check deposit).14 In addition, we agree with Petitioner (see Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 72) that an ordinary artisan would have understood such an implementation to apply a known 14 Patent Owner’s argument that security and software maintenance would have instead weighed against the proposed combination (see, e.g., PO Sur-reply 9–10) is untimely because it was not advanced in the Response and is not fairly responsive to the Reply. See supra § II.A; Pet. Reply 15–16 (noting that the Response had not addressed these issues). Moreover, even if this argument had been properly raised, it would not be persuasive because Patent Owner does not identify persuasive evidence to support its position. See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). (Garcia’s mobile phone) with predictable results. We are also persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application such that the application provides a user-interface and controls the image capture device, as disclosed by Byrne. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23. Garcia suggests that the application should perform these functions (see Ex. 1003, 5:1–6:10, 9:19– 10:18), and we credit Dr. Mowry’s testimony that an ordinary artisan would find this desirable (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65, 67). Moreover, the references lend themselves to the combination because Garcia and Byrne both describe remotely depositing a check via the Internet using software on a user’s device that opens an interactive session, and both perform substantially similar steps. See Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1003, 9:21–10:3, 10:10–18, 11:7–15; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41, 48, 174–175, 177–178. Finally, Dr. Mowry testifies that the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination, and he provides supporting analysis and evidence. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 68–72; see also Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 38–39. We credit this testimony from Dr. Mowry because it draws reasonable inferences and is supported by the cited evidence.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,769,598 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,769,598
• Gen Digital Inc. v. Kajeet, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00001 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–15, 18–21, and 27–29 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 2 is not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend is denied for claims 31 and 35–45 and dismissed for claim 32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Putzolu. We are also persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view of Putzolu’s teachings, to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Putzolu.” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “4. Putzolu and Bhat are Analogous Art Patent Owner contends that Putzolu and Bhat cannot be considered in” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “his analysis suffers from the same deficiencies as Patent Owner’s arguments and thus fails to sufficiently explain and support his conclusion on this point. See Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 32–40. Moreover, Mr. Sharma testifies that the term “communication device” is “broader” than the term “computing device” because a “communication device . . . might not do any computing,” and we find this to lack credibility. Id. ¶ 36; Ex. 1017, 34:9–35:12. This testimony is premised on Mr. Sharma’s assumption that a “computing” device must have “much more processing and intelligence on that device beyond just transmitting data” (Ex. 1007, 34:25–35:1), but this assumption is neither” slip op. at 16

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

    “4. Support in the Original Disclosure A motion to amend may not introduce new matter. 35 U.S.C.” slip op. at 68

  Patent outcomesUS 8,667,559 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,667,559
• Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2023 · IPR2021-01343 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14–16, and 18–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Baldwin; claims 6, 8, 11, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been a person with a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in digital video signal processing or digital video streaming or had a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in digital video signal processing.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Petitioner also states that a person of ordinary skill would have been able to, among other things, encode and decode digital video signals, packetize, multiplex, and demultiplex encoded digital video signals for transmission, and implement modulation and channel coding. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, with one or two years of experience in this or a related field.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 20). Patent Owner states that its definition of a person of ordinary skill is similar to Petitioner’s definition and that any differences are not material. PO Resp. 13. We determine a person of ordinary skill would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience in digital video signal processing or digital video streaming, which is consistent with the parties’ arguments, the ’014 patent, and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5

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

    “1. “video information” Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “video information” means “digital video data.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed construction and contends “video information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner also states that the construction of “video information” is immaterial to this proceeding. PO Resp. 13. We do not discern a meaningful dispute between the parties regarding the meaning of “video information,” and we do not expressly interpret the term. 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.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Among other problems with these arguments, it is not clear how or where Petitioner relies on the proposed combination to satisfy any specific claim limitations. Petitioner argues each of Cooper and Baldwin teaches each limitation of each independent claim, and Petitioner presents its combination of references separate from its comparisons of Cooper and Baldwin to the claims, without clearly stating how the references are to be combined or how those combined teachings satisfy particular limitations. Because Petitioner fails to identify its proposed combination with sufficient clarity, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Cooper and Baldwin to yield the subject matter recited by the challenged claims. We also disagree with Petitioner’s argument that Realtime Data suggests that Petitioner does not need to show a motivation to combine. Reply 27–29 (citing Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1373–74). Unlike here, in Realtime Data, the secondary reference was cited for the “sole purpose” of confirming that an element was disclosed in the primary reference. Id. In this case, Petitioner proposes combining some teachings from each of Baldwin and Cooper. See Pet. 19–20; Reply 27. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not articulated an adequate rationale to combine the references to arrive at any particular challenged claim.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner contends, and we agree, that Cooper does not teach that its receiver identifies which of two streams is expected to result in a lower latency, as required by limitation [1d]. PO Resp. 36–52. Where Cooper describes receiving a multiplexed composite signal, Cooper teaches always identifying the normal mode packet stream for decoding when it is available, without regard to latency, and identifying the robust mode packet stream for decoding only when the normal mode packet stream is not available, such as when normal mode packets are lost. E.g., Ex. 1004, 7:8–8:28. In fact, it would be inconsistent with Cooper’s teachings for the receiver to select the robust mode packet stream when the normal mode packet stream is available: Cooper teaches that “[u]nder normal conditions, the error signal is not active on the error signal line E. In response, the selector 230 couples the normal mode packet stream to the multi-standard decoder 240, and the multi-standard decoder 240 begins to generate the content representative signal from the normal mode packets . . . .” Ex. 1004, 7:32–37 (emphasis added). Although Cooper also teaches that its receiver can decode the robust mode packet stream to avoid “undue delay” “at the beginning of any broadcast or channel change,” we find that Cooper does so only when the normal mode packet stream is not available. Ex. 1004, 17:23–45; see also Ex. 1004, 3:1–3. Specifically, Cooper states that “at the beginning of any broadcast or channel change,” there is a period of time (i.e., Tadv ) when the receiver’s delay device 220 is being filled. Ex. 1004, 17:23–26 (emphasis added). Cooper explains that waiting until delay device 220 is full would cause “undue delay when a receiver is switched on or a channel is changed.” Ex. 1004, 17:26–30. To address this delay, Cooper’s receiver decodes the robust mode packet stream, which “is immediately available,” so that a video signal can be presented until “the normal mode packet stream becomes available,” at which point the receiver switches to decoding the normal mode packet stream. Ex. 1004, 17:30–42. Consequently, we find that Cooper teaches that, at a channel change, its receiver receives (and decodes) the robust mode packet stream until it receives the normal mode packet stream. We disagree with Petitioner’s contrary argument that Cooper’s receiver receives both streams in this situation (see Reply 4–16), and, at a minimum, Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Cooper teaches or suggests this (see Ex. 2015, 82:22–85:13 (describing different scenarios but acknowledging that “Cooper doesn’t really illuminate either of these”)). Further, Cooper’s description of Figure 3 is consistent with our understanding of Cooper description of a channel change. Specifically, that portion of Cooper states: Time t0 may represent the time when the receiver is turned on, or when a user specifies a new content source to receive. During the time, Tadv, between t0 and t4, robust mode packets “a” to “j” are loaded into the delay device 220, and normal mode packets, designated “0” through “9” are received. At time t4, the normal mode packet “A” becomes available from the demultiplexer 210 and delayed robust mode packet “a” becomes available from the delay device 220. Under normal conditions, . . . the selector 230 couples the normal mode packet stream to the multi-standard decoder 240, and the multi-standard decoder 240 begins to generate the content representative signal from the normal mode packets, as described above. This is illustrated by the cross hatching 301 in the normal mode packets “A” through “G”. Ex. 1004, 7:24–39. Cooper includes this description in order to explain its typical operation as well as to illustrate the relative timing of the robust mode packet stream and the normal mode packet stream. See Ex. 1004, 7:24–25, 7:40–8:28. This passage teaches that normal mode packets designated with capital letters (e.g., “A”) are displayed after time t4 under normal conditions; however, it does not address which (if any) packets are displayed between time t0 and time t4. As a result, we understand this passage of Cooper to indicate that “0” to “9” are simply placeholders, which” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,646,014 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,646,014
• Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01298 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable, principally as obvious over Lee alone, Lee and Glance, or Lee and Smith; claim 30 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Lee. We are also persuaded that, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view of Lee’s teachings, to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Lee.” slip op. at 57

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “arguments in Patent Owner’s Sur-reply that are allegedly untimely (Paper 38), and Patent Owner responded (Paper 39). For the reasons explained below, we agree with Petitioner that the Sur-reply includes untimely new arguments, but we determine that those arguments would not have been persuasive even if they had been properly raised. See infra § II.E.1.b.ii (addressing Lee’s usage history).” slip op. at 3

  Patent outcomesUS 10,911,938 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,911,938
• Cloudflare, Inc. / Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 18, 2022 · IPR2022-00228 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3, 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, and 39–44 are unpatentable under §103; claims 17, 18, 37, and 38 are not shown unpatentable over Yung alone.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject” and “3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). In the Institution Decision, we adopted this articulation of the level of ordinary skill. Inst. Dec. 15. At trial, neither party disputed our preliminary finding. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply. We remain persuaded that this articulation of the level of skill in the art is supported by the ’593 patent, the asserted prior art, and Dr. Jeffay’s testimony. See Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject and 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “1. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends the challenged claims include means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and for each, Petitioner identifies a construction for use in this proceeding. Pet. 11– 14.12 Petitioner submits that no other terms require construction for purposes of this proceeding. Id. at 12. In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the identified limitations are means-plus-function limitations. Inst. Dec. 16 (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”)). We also stated that we were persuaded that Petitioner had correctly identified the recited functions and the components in the Specification that perform those functions. Id. at 16– 17. As a result, we preliminarily adopted the following constructions: Limitation” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Instead, Patent Owner points to the Specification, but this also fails to support Patent Owner’s contention. Although claims are read in view of the Specification (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315), they are not limited to the embodiments disclosed in it (id. at 1323). Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no passage in the Specification that could be read as redefining this claim phrase or disavowing part of its scope. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In fact, the passages cited by Patent Owner are directed to the handling of a single flow, and none expressly indicates that an identical method must be used for each flow processed. See Ex. 1001, 6:25–31, 7:51–52, 8:12–17. Thus, we determine that the Specification does not justify importing the limitation proposed by Patent Owner into the claims. Accordingly, having reviewed the intrinsic record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that claims 9 and 29 require computing a badness factor for each flow or all flows; rather, this claim limitation may be satisfied by computing a badness factor for a single flow.” slip op. at 12

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

    “3. Other constructions The parties do not propose constructions for any other terms or phrases. See Pet. 11–14; PO Resp. Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms or phrases. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,243,593 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,243,593
• Cloudflare, Inc. / Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 18, 2022 · IPR2021-00909 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3, 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, and 39–44 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 17, 18, 37, and 38 were not shown unpatentable over Yung.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject” and “3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). In the Institution Decision, we adopted this articulation of the level of ordinary skill. Inst. Dec. 15. At trial, neither party disputed our preliminary finding. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply. We remain persuaded that this articulation of the level of skill in the art is supported by the ’593 patent, the asserted prior art, and Dr. Jeffay’s testimony. See Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject and 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “1. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends the challenged claims include means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and for each, Petitioner identifies a construction for use in this proceeding. Pet. 11– 14.12 Petitioner submits that no other terms require construction for purposes of this proceeding. Id. at 12. In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the identified limitations are means-plus-function limitations. Inst. Dec. 16 (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”)). We also stated that we were persuaded that Petitioner had correctly identified the recited functions and the components in the Specification that perform those functions. Id. at 16– 17. As a result, we preliminarily adopted the following constructions: Limitation” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner

    “In particular, claim 9 recites a method for processing a flow that includes computing a badness factor for the flow. Ex. 1001, 11:63–8. Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no limitation that requires a badness factor to be computed for each flow. Inst. Dec. 44 (addressing substantially similar argument presented in preliminary response); see also Ex. 1001, 13:32–44 (claim 29). During trial, Patent Owner neither responds to this analysis nor points to a claim limitation that allegedly includes this requirement. Instead, Patent Owner points to the Specification, but this also fails to support Patent Owner’s contention. Although claims are read in view of the Specification (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315), they are not limited to the embodiments disclosed in it (id. at 1323). Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no passage in the Specification that could be read as redefining this claim phrase or disavowing part of its scope. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In fact, the passages cited by Patent Owner are directed to the handling of a single flow, and none expressly indicates that an identical method must be used for each flow processed. See Ex. 1001, 6:25–31, 7:51–52, 8:12–17. Thus, we determine that the Specification does not justify importing the limitation proposed by Patent Owner into the claims. Accordingly, having reviewed the intrinsic record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that claims 9 and 29 require computing a badness factor for each flow or all flows; rather, this claim limitation may be satisfied by computing a badness factor for a single flow.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we are persuaded that Copeland discloses this limitation. Copeland analyzes a flow’s statistics (including start time, end time, number of bytes, and number of packets) “to determine if the flow appears to be legitimate traffic or possible suspicious activity” and computes a concern index for the flow if it appears suspicious. E.g., Ex. 1007, 3:31–35, 7:38–67, 16:36–17:5. We find that Copeland’s concern index qualifies as a “badness factor for the flow . . . [that] provides an indication of whether the flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior,” as required by claim 9. E.g., Ex. 1007, 3:31–40, 4:30–33, Fig. 1 (identifying “‘bad’ flow(s)”). As Dr. Jeffay explains, an ordinary artisan would have understood that suspicious activity (such as a probe or network attack) is undesirable behavior. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 211–212. We also find that Copeland teaches computing a concern index “based at least partially upon the set of behavioral statistics” because, for example, it uses the number of packets to compute the concern index. Ex. 1007, 7:64–67, Fig. 6 (setting concern index to number of packets); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 213.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,243,593 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,243,593
• NXP B.V. / NXP USA, Inc. et al. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00967 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field as well as at least four years of experience in high-frequency circuit engineering and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). For purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (Inst. Dec. 17–18), and neither party addresses the level of ordinary skill in the post-institution briefs (see generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-reply). In this Decision, we again adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner. This level of skill is consistent with the Specification of the ’269 patent and the asserted prior art, and it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Choi. Accord Inst. Dec. 17–18.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “on an integrated circuit package substrate for connecting with a printed circuit board.” PO Resp. 9–12; Sur-reply 1–2. Petitioner disagrees. Reply 6. But, because we find that Petitioner has shown that Chin suggests implementing its invention in an IC9 package substrate as Patent Owner’s proposed construction would require (infra § III.D.2.), we need not resolve this dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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))). However, if we needed to substantively address this dispute, we would reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Patent Owner advocates limiting the scope of this claim term to include only the contact pads in a particular location (i.e., the PCB-side of the IC package substrate),10 but the intrinsic record does not support importing such a limitation into the claim. Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no passage in the intrinsic record that redefines the term “contact pads” or disavows part of its scope. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that a term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning unless a patentee acted as his own lexicographer or disavowed claim scope). Rather, Patent Owner’s argument is that the term should be limited because the Specification only discusses “contact pads” in that location and does not apply its invention to other pads” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s ultimate assertion that the plain language of the claim is informative of its proper meaning, such that “vias connecting the contact pads with one of the electrically conductive layers” means that vias are used to connect the recited contact pads with an electrically conductive layer. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. After considering the parties’ arguments, we determine that no other claim terms require an express construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “we agree with Petitioner that Chin explains that its “concepts apply equally to an integrated circuit package substrate.” Pet. 22. In particular, we find that Chin discloses an IC package substrate. See Ex. 1004, 1:61–62 (referring to “a substrate used inside a BGA package”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30 (Dr. Choi explaining that a BGA is a type of IC package). We credit Dr. Choi’s testimony on this point because it is logical and supported by cited evidence. See, e.g., Ex. 1014, 45;12 Ex. 1016, 5–7. We are also persuaded that Chin expressly suggests implementing its invention in an IC package substrate. Chin begins its description by stating that “[t]he present invention relates generally to the design and fabrication of printed circuits and multi-layered substrates.” Ex. 1004, 1:7–8 (emphasis added). Chin also states that its invention “is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation,” in its figures. Ex. 1004, 3:26–27. Similarly, Chin’s final paragraph states that alternative implementations “will be apparent to those skilled in the art,” and it states that “semiconductor implementations . . . are contemplated as within the scope of the present invention” as they use “similar layered printed circuit routing techniques.” Ex. 1004, 5:54–6:10. Moreover, as background for its invention, Chin addresses problems encountered as signal speed increases and explains that “excess parasitics that limit the bandwidth” are caused by an impedance mismatch between landing pads and their associated interconnect conductors. Ex. 1004, 1:35–56. Chin then states: One example is the use of a ball-grid-array (BGA) package in a multi-gigahertz printed circuit board. The landing pads of current state of the art BGAs are typically 25–30 mils in 12 Unless otherwise noted, our citations refer to page numbers added to an exhibit by Petitioner or Patent Owner rather than the document’s native page numbers. diameter, which is significantly larger than the typically 5 mil microstrips used in interconnecting conductors. Another example is a substrate used inside a BGA package. Typical solder ball landing pad sizes for current technology BGA substrates are on the order of 20–25 mil, significantly larger than the typically 3 mil traces used in microstrip interconnects. Ex. 1004, 1:56–65 (emphasis added). Accordingly, given the context provided by Chin (see Ex. 1004, 1:7–8, 5:54–6:10), we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this passage (see Ex. 1004, 1:61–65) to suggest applying Chin’s disclosure to an IC package substrate. Accord Inst. Dec. 23–24.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,288,269 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,288,269
• NXP B.V. / NXP USA, Inc. et al. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00966 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, and 12–17 are unpatentable; claims 2, 3, 5–11, 18, and 19 were not shown unpatentable, primarily because the Board found deficiencies in the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Our reviewing court has explained that “the level of skill in the art is a” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “1. Is the Preamble a Limitation? Patent Owner argues that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. PO” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther

    “2. “contact pads” Patent Owner argues “that the term ‘contact pads’ refers to the pads” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “combination of Chin and HighSpeed. Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chin and HighSpeed in the manner proposed. We agree with Patent Owner that simply characterizing references as being from the same field of endeavor is not sufficient to support an obviousness conclusion. PO Resp. 56; see ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Furthermore, Petitioner’s analysis that it would have been obvious to arrange Chin in view of HighSpeed to have the second layer be a routing layer because the arrangement “is one of a finite number of possibilities and within the skill of a POSITA to try” is incomplete. Pet. 80. The Supreme Court in KSR held that “[w]hen 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.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (emphasis added). Petitioner, however, never addresses, or otherwise presents evidence showing, a design need or market pressure to solve a problem. See Pet. 58–59, 65, 80; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 165, 177, 232 (repeating material in the Petition). Additionally, testimony from Dr. Choi that “there are many ways to achieve the same result” of an impedance match in Chin, undermines Petitioner’s “finite number” argument.32 Ex. 2032, 196:20–23. For these reasons, as well as those discussed in Section II.E.2 supra,” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 8,049,340 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,049,340
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Justservice.Net LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2020-01258 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, 10, 13–16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner

    “We declined to decide whether Dropbox should have been named an RPI in the Petition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 2–4. Patent Owner did not raise the RPI issue in its post-institution Response. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has thus forfeited any RPI arguments. Reply at 24 (citing Unified Patents, LLC v. Mobility Workx, LLC, IPR2018- 00150, Paper 26 at 3 (PTAB Dec. 2, 2019) (RPI arguments waived if not in Response)). Therefore, we need not address this issue further.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s definition as being consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the prior art. Dec. 10–11; 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 6 Patent Owner also submitted a supplemental declaration by Dr. Brogioli (Ex. 2031) with its Sur-Reply. We expunged that document from the record along with certain other exhibits (Exs. 2023–2030) as untimely presented under 37 C.F.R § 42.23(b). Paper 37. Therefore, we do not take those documents into consideration for our analysis in this Decision. Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We continue to apply that same definition for our analysis in this Final Written Decision. We note, however, that there does not appear to be a significant difference between the parties’ respective definitions, so our analysis would not substantially differ under Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Walker is not enabled, or that a POSITA would not have a reasonable expectation of success in combining Prust with Walker, because those arguments focus on features not required by the challenged claims of the ’868 patent. See Raytheon Tech. Corp. v. General Electric Co., 993 F.3d 1374) (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“In general, a prior art reference asserted under § 103 does not necessarily have to enable its own disclosure, i.e., be ‘self-enabling,’ to be relevant to the obviousness inquiry.”). Dr. Brogioli acknowledged that he never even analyzed whether the features of Walker that he argues are not enabling are required in the claims of the ’868 patent. Ex. 1032, 84:1-85:22 (testifying that he did not recall performing an analysis about whether the claims of the ’868 patent required allowing users to edit different parts of the same file at the same time, user collaboration, concurrency among user actions and editing, or locking a document). Moreover, other than pointing to the allegedly deficient teachings of Walker itself, Dr. Brogioli cites to no evidence of record in support of his testimony that a POSITA would not have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Walker. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 66–74. But Walker itself is presumed to be enabling for what it teaches. See In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] prior art printed publication . . . is presumptively enabling barring any showing to the contrary by [the] patentee.”). Rather than the unsupported testimony of Dr. Brogioli, we credit the testimony of Dr. Long, which is corroborated by other prior art, that the concepts disclosed in Walker, such as indicating that downloaded files are currently locked and unavailable to other users and multi-user editing, would have been familiar to programming students before 2005, and a POSITA would have been able to apply these well-known techniques with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 36–40, 67 (citing Ex. 1011–1017); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 4–5.” slip op. at 39

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

    “we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s claim construction position that the claims require the virtual server to transmit information about files locally stored on the client device (in addition to virtual server files) as part of the fourth claim element. With regard to the claim language, we agree with Patent Owner that “the one or more files associated with the particular user storage account” recited in the fifth claim element finds antecedent basis in the prior recitation of “information relating to one or more files associated with the particular user storage account” in the fourth claim element. By its plain language, what this means is that at least some of the “information” that is transmitted from the virtual server under the fourth element must be related to the “userselected file” that is subsequently uploaded from the client device under the fifth element. Cf. Yamaha Corp. v. ESS Tech., Inc., 82 F.3d 435, 1996 WL 146499, *3 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“By using a definite article ‘the’ to describe ‘output’ in the last phrase, Yamaha raises the inference that the term refers to the same value as in the first step.”). Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, we are not of the view that files referenced in the fourth and fifth elements are completely “distinct.” But this does not necessarily imply, as Patent Owner suggests, that the virtual server must already be in possession of information relating to locally stored files at the point of the transmitting step of the fourth element and prior to the uploading step of the fifth element. Indeed, there is nothing recited in the claims to suggest how the virtual server would come to know about files stored on the client device.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,476,868 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,476,868

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.