- Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01449 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2 were unpatentable under any of the four asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and 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.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” where “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’463 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’463 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“C. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. 25–26. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Further, because Bowen’s disclosed barrier height is outside the claimed range, Petitioner relies on Soukup’s purported teaching of a barrier height of “about 0.33 eV” and contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “achieve” that barrier height for the MgO barrier of Bowen’s device. Id. at 34–36. The data that Petitioner relies on from Soukup for the “about 0.33 eV” barrier height, though, was determined using the slope of an Arrhenius plot, not Simmons’ formula. Ex. 1028, 3229 (Abstract), 3231–33, Table I. In Soukup, apparent barrier heights for the samples were determined using (1) the slope of an Arrhenius plot, and (2) the zero-field intercept of the straight line logI versus V1/2 plot. Id. at 3229 (Abstract), 3230–32, Fig. 3, Table I. Reproduced below is Table I of Soukup, as annotated by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 39): Annotated Table I of Soukup includes the results of analyses of sample test data, with the column highlighted in yellow showing the barrier heights obtained by a zero-field intercept method and the column highlighted in blue showing barrier heights obtained from the slope of an Arrhenius plot. See Ex. 1028, 3233; Prelim. Resp. 38–39. Dr. Bokor testifies that “Soukup disclosed that Simmons’ formula was used to approximate tunnel barrier height” and “[o]ne of skill would have understood the ‘height and the bias dependence of the insulator potential-energy barrier’ [referenced in Soukup] included the tunnel barrier height.” Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 145–147 (quoting Ex. 1028, 3229; citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 45–49). We do not find this testimony persuasive. Although Soukup refers to “Simmons’ model” and the Simmons 1963 paper in its “Introduction,” it does not teach any calculation using Simmons’ formula to obtain a barrier height within the claimed range. See Ex. 1028, 3229, 3236 n.1; Prelim. Resp. 63. Soukup plainly recognizes that there are methods of calculating barrier height other than Simmons’ formula, and discusses at length its calculations using two such methods: the Arrhenius plot method and the zero-field intercept method. See, e.g., Ex. 1028, 3229 (Abstract) (“These results . . . indicate a potential barrier height of about 0.72 eV when determined from the zero-field intercept of the straight line logI vs V1/2 plot and about 0.33 eV when obtained from an Arrhenius plot.”), 3232–33. Petitioner does not address whether the 0.33 eV barrier height it relies on from Soukup (determined using the Arrhenius plot method) would still be within the claimed range if calculated using Simmons’ formula. See Prelim. Resp. 63. Nor does Petitioner rely on any values from Soukup’s disclosure that would be used as the variables in Simmons’ formula—Petitioner relies solely on Bowen. See Pet. 39–42. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that Bowen and Soukup teach a barrier height within the claimed range, obtained using equation (1), is not persuasive. See id. at 34–42.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,123,463 - Trend Micro, Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 14, 2024 · IPR2023-01390 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Piccard was disqualified under pre-AIA § 103(c)(1), leaving neither asserted obviousness ground likely to establish claims 1–14 as unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’243 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Petitioner asserts that Piccard qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e). Pet. 4 (“Piccard . . . is prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e) because it was filed on June 30, 2005, before the earliest possible priority date of the ’243 patent.”). Piccard cannot qualify as prior art under § 102(a) or § 102(b), as Piccard published January 4, 2007, which is after the ’243 patent’s April 20, 2006 filing date. Ex. 1007, code (43); Ex. 1001, code (22). Therefore, Piccard could qualify as prior art only under § 102(e) and may be subject to disqualification under § 103(c)(1). Cf. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-02148, Paper 9 at 19–20 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2018) (determining that a reference was not disqualified under § 103(c)(1) because it qualified as prior art under § 102(a) and therefore was not “prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102”).” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,201,243 - Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · PGR2023-00031 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable over the asserted obviousness or indefiniteness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. A post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’869 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 16). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 33. Considering the subject matter of the ’869 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification of the ’869 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,409,869 - Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2023-00731 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Li was prior art, defeating the reasonable-likelihood showing for all challenged claims and grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’243 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“therefore, “the Board [will] not consider[] these hyperlinked webpages as evidence in [this] proceeding[].” Ex. 3001. As a result, Dr. Hall-Ellis’s declaration does not cite any supporting evidence of record in this proceeding (other than Li itself, Ex. 1005). Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 40–43. The declaration thus “does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based” and is therefore “entitled to little or no weight.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). For this reason alone, we find that Petitioner has failed to establish the public accessibility of Li.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Our rules require that “[a]ll evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit,” and that “[e]ach exhibit must be filed with the first document in which it is cited except as the Board may otherwise order.” Id. §§ 42.63(a), 42.6(c). Despite Petitioner not filing the webpage links as exhibits with Exhibit 1009, we gave Petitioner the opportunity to correct this error and ordered Petitioner to file late copies of these webpage links as exhibits by September 22, 2023. See Ex. 3001 (email order); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) (“except as the Board may otherwise order”). Petitioner declined to do so, instead choosing to request authorization to file a Motion to Dismiss, which we authorized in an order mailed October 2, 2023 (Paper 17).7 In our email order, we informed Petitioner that failure to file the webpage links as exhibits would result in the Board not considering the webpage links as evidence in these proceedings. Ex. 3001. Our order authorizing filing of the Motion to Dismiss did not obviate Petitioner’s responsibility to file copies of the webpage links as exhibits. See id.; Paper 17.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner provides a slightly different definition of the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–43). We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’243 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this decision. Our decision would not have changed had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,201,243 - Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh RathodInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 27, 2022 · DER2022-00002 · APJ Michael R Zecher · DER · Institution
The Board denied institution because Tencent did not make a sufficient showing that the named inventors conceived the invention allegedly communicated to Rathod.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“that the standards for instituting a derivation proceeding are met, the Director may institute a derivation proceeding.” 35 U.S.C. § 135(a)(1). We have authority to institute a derivation proceeding on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.408(a). The threshold showing for institution of a derivation proceeding is whether the petition demonstrates substantial evidence that, if unrebutted, would support a determination of derivation. See 35 U.S.C. § 135(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(c).1 Once a derivation proceeding has been instituted, the standard of proof for establishing that a challenged claim constitutes a derived invention is by a preponderance of the evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“is devoid of any explanation of the circumstances surrounding conception of the invention by the three named inventors of the ’371 application. Most notably, Tencent does not provide supporting testimony from any of the three named inventors or, for that matter, from any other parties that could corroborate the alleged conception. Indeed, the word “conception” does not appear in Tencent’s Petition at all. See Pet. Put simply, Tencent fails to provide any meaningful information regarding the work done by each of the three named inventors that resulted in conception of the invention covered by the pending claims of the ’371 application. Absent some evidence in the record, such as testimony from the three named inventors together with corroborating evidence showing there was formation in the mind of the named inventors of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, Tencent has not demonstrated prior conception.6 To the extent Tencent expects us to scour the preliminary record to unearth supporting evidence of prior conception, we decline to do so. It is well-settled that Tencent is “master of its complaint.” SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018). We are constrained by the arguments and evidence presented and developed in Tencent’s Petition, and we are not” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“6 We recognize that Tencent contends that the ’265 patent and the three applications in its priority chain lack sufficient written description support for the claimed invention. Pet. 17–28. We need not reach Tencent’s arguments that the three applications in the priority chain of the ’265 patent lack sufficient written description support for the claimed invention because, as we explain above, Tencent does not demonstrate that the named inventors in the ’371 application conceived, at any time, the inventions purportedly communicated to Mr. Rathod.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyNot reached
“is devoid of any explanation of the circumstances surrounding conception of the invention by the three named inventors of the ’371 application. Most notably, Tencent does not provide supporting testimony from any of the three named inventors or, for that matter, from any other parties that could corroborate the alleged conception. Indeed, the word “conception” does not appear in Tencent’s Petition at all. See Pet. Put simply, Tencent fails to provide any meaningful information regarding the work done by each of the three named inventors that resulted in conception of the invention covered by the pending claims of the ’371 application. Absent some evidence in the record, such as testimony from the three named inventors together with corroborating evidence showing there was formation in the mind of the named inventors of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, Tencent has not demonstrated prior conception.6” slip op. at 13
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,990,265 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00717 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims: Grounds 1–3, 6, and 7 failed the institution threshold, and Grounds 4 and 5 were denied under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“the list of cited references of the ’203 Patent. Ex. 1001, 2; Ex. 1002, 430. Because the same reference was cited during prosecution, there is no material difference between Christensen and the prior art involved during examination. Given these facts, we need not further evaluate factor (b), whether Christensen is cumulative, nor factor (d), the extent of overlap in arguments regarding Christensen. Thus, we find that the same reference was previously presented to the Office, and we move on to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the Petition does not establish there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing at least one of Challenged Claims of the ’203 Patent as unpatentable under certain grounds presented in the Petition, and that the remaining asserted grounds should be denied pursuant to our delegated discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review as to any of the challenged claims of the ’203 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have had at least a B.S. in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and three years of experience working in the communications- or Internet-related industries” and that “[m]ore education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” C. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill appears to be generally consistent with the subject matter of the ’203 Patent. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner that the recited database system should be given no patentable weight. The Federal Circuit explains that [p]roduct-by-process claims are not specifically discussed in the patent statute. The practice and governing law have developed in response to the need to enable an applicant to claim an otherwise patentable product that resists definition by other than the process by which it is made. For this reason, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). With respect to patentability, “[i]f the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Id. The Federal Circuit has clearly stated that “[i]n determining validity of a product-by-process claim, the focus is on the product and not the process of making it.” Purdue Pharma, 811 F.3d at 1354 (quoting Greenliant Sys., Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “That is because of the . . . longstanding rule that an old product is not patentable even if it is made by a new process.” Id. Generally, therefore, the recited process steps in a product-by-process claim are not accorded patentable weight. See In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, 881 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he Board typically will not accord patentable weight to a process limitation in a product-by-process claim.”) (citing Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,200,203 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00718 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on the Levy grounds and § 325(d) warranted denial of the Christensen ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response and for the reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the ’843 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he [Office] is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an [inter partes review] proceeding.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in determining whether to institute an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In evaluating the exercise of discretion to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non- exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). Factors (a), (b), and (d) of the Becton, Dickinson factors relate to whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“Based on our review of Petitioner’s relied-upon portions of Levy, Levy uses an extracted identifier, such as a broadcaster ID, and “context information” to identify an audio object. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15, 56. Thus, if we accepted Petitioner’s position that obtaining Levy’s “object identifier” discloses “acquir[ing] encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission,” Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how context information that is extracted and forwarded with the broadcaster ID to obtain the “object identifier” can disclose “generat[ing] data that enables the unique identification of the specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data.” See Pet. 57–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194. Petitioner does not identifier” can be acquired and generated in the manner argued by Petitioner. See Pet. 57–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194; see also Prelim. Resp. 36–37 (contending that Petitioner’s anticipation challenges lack particularity). As argued by Patent Owner, claim 10 requires that “generat[ing] data that enables the unique identification of the specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data” occur either after or at the same time as “acquir[ing] encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission.” Ex. 1001, 36:28–33. Claim 10 recites a “specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data” that apparently refers to the earlier-recited “acquire encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission,” and Petitioner does not address the interpretation of “acquisition” in view of the previously recited “acquire.” See Pet. 9–10, 57–60. Additionally, Petitioner’s declarant testimony does not explain further the arguments or evidence presented in the Petition and does not provide additional evidence beyond that cited in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194. Thus, for the reasons above, Petitioner fails to show that Levy discloses all the limitations of independent claim 10. 3. Dependent Claims 11, 13, and 15 Petitioner argues that Levy anticipates dependent claims 11, 13, and 15 with citations to the record. Pet. 65–69. Petitioner’s arguments and relied upon evidence for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies discussed above for independent claim 10. that Levy discloses all the limitations of dependent claims 11, 13, and 15 and, therefore, fails to show that Levy anticipates these claims.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“4. Asserted Obviousness in view of Levy and Finley Petitioner argues that: [t]o the extent . . . that Levy does not anticipate the Challenged Claims because Levy does not disclose the complete details of the claimed database (in other words, that the difference between each claim as a whole and the prior art as a whole is the explicit recitation of the claimed database), it would have been obvious to store the object ID lookup information or purchase transaction tracking information. Pet. 69 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 227); see also id. (contending that Levy teaches storing a transaction log in a log file of a database). Petitioner’s arguments that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 do not further address the limitations we discussed above for claim 10, and Petitioner’s proposed modification of Levy in view of Finley does not remedy the deficiencies of Petitioner’s arguments that Levy discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Thus, for the reasons discussed above for claim 10, Petitioner fails to show that Levy and Finley teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 and, therefore, fails to show that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious these claims. 5. Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing As discussed above, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Levy anticipates claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 and fail to show that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious these claims. Petitioner, therefore, fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges based on Levy.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,584,843 - Marketdial, Inc. v. Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · CBM2020-00025 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review of claims 1–35 under Fintiv because the district court had already held the same claims invalid under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“institution decision.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (citing Snap, Paper 8). We agree. There will be no trial as to patent infringement because the district court already concluded that all claims of the ’916 patent are invalid under § 101. Patent Owner indicates that it will appeal that decision once the remainder of the district court case concludes. Id. at 3. The statutory deadline for a final written decision in this proceeding would be one year from institution. Under the particular factual circumstances of this case, we find that this factor strongly weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“3 Because we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), we need not decide other issues presented by the Petition, such as whether the ’916 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached
“3 Because we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), we need not decide other issues presented by the Petition, such as whether the ’916 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 8
§ 101 eligibilityDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,571,916 - Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2018 · PGR2018-00004 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding claims 1–45 supported and enabled.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“III. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When requesting rehearing of a decision, the challenging party must identify specifically all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in the record. Id. When considering a request for rehearing of a decision on whether to institute trial, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“’472 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Dec. 16. Here, eligibility for post-grant review depends on the effective filing date of the challenged claims. When determining the effective filing date, a claim is entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date when an earlier application discloses the claimed invention “in the manner provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode).” See id. at 6 (citing US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, Case PGR2015- 00019, slip. op. at 7 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2016) (Paper 54)). The ’472 patent was the latest in a chain of continuation applications that dates back to U.S. Patent Application No. 13/169,9685 (“968 Application”), which was filed on June 27, 2011. Ex. 1001, at [63]. We previously determined that the 968 5 There are other applications in this chain, but none of those applications are relevant to the issues presented here and thus, we do not address those applications. Application and the ’472 patent have substantially identical specifications and figures. See Dec. 7 (finding that the 968 Application and the patent application from which the ’472 patent issued are substantially identical). We thus determined that we were able to “analyze the ’472 patent’s eligibility for post grant review through a discussion of Petitioner’s arguments as to written description support in the ’472 patent.” Id. at 8. We then found that Petitioner failed to establish that the challenged claims lack written description support or are not enabled. See id. at 12, 15–16.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“The ’472 patent expressly recites: Actuation of activation switch 85 causes logic control circuit 18 of programming station 3 to randomly generate a unique security code (i.e. SDC) that is transmitted via communication circuit 20 to communication circuit 79 of programmable key 5, which in turn stores the randomly generated SDC in security code (SDC) memory 81 of the key . . . . [T]he SDC initially provided by the programming station 3 is randomly generated and is unique to that programming station and always remains with that programming station for subsequent use. Thus, the SDC initially generated always stays with the programming station 3 and is subsequently programmed into one or more programmable keys 5. Ex. 1001, 9:23–43 (emphases added); see also id. at 10:6–12 (“[T]he particular programming station 3 of the retail store [is] used to program the key with the SDC.”). The ’472 patent also discloses that the programming station “reprogram[s] or refresh[es] the SDC into the key” after the programmable key times out, which occurs after a predetermined period elapses from the time that the programmable key was last programmed or refreshed. See e.g., id. at 12:63–13:8. Specifically, the programming station performs a “handshake” with the key “to determine whether the key has not previously been programmed with a SDC (i.e. a ‘new’ key), or is an authorized key that is being presented to the programming station a subsequent time to refresh the SDC,” and once a proper “handshake” is completed, the programming station “permits the SDC generated by the logic control circuit and/or stored in the memory to be transmitted . . . [to] the programmable electronic key.” Id. at 16:4–19. Thus, the programming station is responsible for generating the SDC and transmitting it to the programmable key. More to the point, the ’472 patent discloses that “the programming station will deactivate a SDC stored in the SDC memory of a key if an incorrect SDC is encountered when the programming station is attempting to reprogram or refresh the key.” Id. at 13:13–17 (emphases added). This contradicts Petitioner’s proposition that a key programmed with one SDC from a first programming station can then program that same SDC into a second programming station. The ’472 patent expressly teaches how to deal with a situation in which a second programming station encounters an incorrect SDC in the memory of a key: it deactivates the SDC stored in the key.” slip op. at 7
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,659,472 - Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00047 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1, 2-4, 11-13, 16-17, and 20-22.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 8,244,586
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.