- Hamilton Technologies LLC v. Fleur TehraniAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 28, 2021 · IPR2020-01199 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 9–12, 29–33, and 41 are unpatentable as obvious over the Carmichael-Anderson and Taube-based combinations; the Carmichael anticipation ground was not proven.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Imbruce’s testimony should be disregarded. With respect to Patent Owner’s contentions about “technically erroneous disclosures” and the construction of “for a next breath,” those are really about Patent Owner’s disagreements about those matters, not whether Dr. Imbruce was attempting to mislead the Board. Disagreement between the experts is not a basis for disregarding testimony. We have also reviewed the entirety of Dr. Imbruce’s deposition, and, in particular, the various parts identified by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 76–77. And, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we found Dr. Imbruce gave detailed answers in response to Patent Owner’s questions. We found Dr. Imbruce’s testimony to be adequate. See, e.g., Ex. 2016, 107:11–115:8 (discussion of Anderson references, explaining the similarities of the references, but declining to vouch for data he has not seen or collected); 115:9–116:6 (FDA permission, offering to confirm what reference said about FDA approval, but attorney moving on to other questions). Thus, we do not find Dr. Imbruce’s behavior during cross examination as a reason to give no weight to the entirety of his testimony.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(i) a medically trained physician or clinician specializing in treating respiratory failure issues with at least five years of practical clinical ventilator experience treating such conditions; or (ii) a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field and about five years of practical experience with developing ventilators for clinical patient treatment; or (iii) a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field and about 10 years of practical experience with developing ventilators for clinical patient treatment. Pet. 20‒21 (referencing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 71‒72). Petitioner proposes that “[a] higher level of education or specific skill might compensate less experience, and vice versa.” Id. at 21. Patent Owner does not present an opposing view of the level of skill of the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art of the ’571 patent. See PO Resp. passim. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’571 patent, based on our review of the record.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“In our Institution Decision, we determined that only the claim terms “first means” and “second means” required construction. Inst. Dec. 25–27. Neither party disputes those constructions and we maintain and adopt them for the purposes of this Decision. We determine that, for purposes of this decision, no other terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Carmichael lacks adequate disclosure to anticipate the apparatus of claim 1. Specifically, because Carmichael focuses on the result of physician surveys, and not on the description of a ventilation system per se, Carmichael lacks details as to the specific manner in which the assist control mode was being used to control PEEP and FIO2 levels. Specifically, we cannot discern that Carmichael’s discussion of an assist control mode for mechanical ventilation necessarily entails adjustments to FIO2 and PEEP “for a next breath of the patient” as recited in claim 1. As explained by Patent Owner, it is possible that the parameters of PEEP and FIO2 could have been set manually by the physician and/or could have been updated only periodically during treatment. See, e.g., PO Resp. 25‒26. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that Carmichael anticipates claim 1, or claims 2, 5, 6, and 11 that depend from claim 1.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,802,571 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,802,571 - PTAB · Dec 22, 2021 · IPR2021-01055 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5 and 9–19 on five § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’766 Patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 9–19 of the ’766 Patent on the grounds of unpatentability raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“For a reference to qualify as a printed publication, “before the critical date the reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “When there is an established publisher there is a presumption of public accessibility as of the publication date.” VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., 981 F.3d 1060, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (determining that, based on the totality of the evidence, a reference bearing a copyright date, a printing date, and an ISBN date all earlier than the critical date of the challenged patent, and the reference was a “textbook from an established publisher” provided sufficient indicia at the institution state).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“configuration error” With respect to the limitation “configuration error,” Patent Owner asserts that configuration error means “either (1) the condition that occurs when ‘a rule or series of rules is not properly defined and produces an undesired effect’ or (2) ‘a series of improperly defined rules causes a part to be in more than one state at the same time.’” Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:54–61; Ex. 2001 ¶ 40). At this stage of the proceeding, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is supported by the ’766 Patent specification, and adopt Patent Owner’s proposed meaning of “configuration error,” with the following remarks with respect to Patent Owner’s additional arguments regarding the claim construction. Patent Owner, however, also argues that “the specification concerns errors internal to the configuration engine and not ‘errors’ that prevent product configurator users from making their desired but impermissible selections.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument because the first part of the construction, namely rules not being properly defined and “produc[ing] an undesired effect,” does not specify anything about an error being “internal” to the configuration engine. The specification provides that such a configuration error “may occur when a rule or series of rules is not properly defined and produces an undesired effect, such as the exclusion of a part that should be selectable” (Ex. 1001, 1:54–61, emphasis added), but the latter clause provides only one example of the undesired effect. We are not persuaded, based on our review of the Specification of the ’766 Patent that “an undesired effect” should be limited to the exclusion of a part. Thus, although Patent Owner argues that “a configuration error is not a condition that occurs when a user attempts to make a choice that is prohibited by a rule” (Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 43)), at this juncture, we are not persuaded that such a condition would not be an undesired effect, according to the adopted construction. Therefore, we do not further limit the construction of “configuration error.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Wood’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer or Electrical Engineering, Engineering Science, an engineering major with a significant computational component, or a similar discipline, or with at least two years of research or experience in configurable systems including testing.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). Patent Owner argues that “[t]here may be some differences between this and the correct level of skill in the art but those differences will not affect this case at this stage,” such that Patent Owner applies the proposed level of skill in the art without agreeing to it. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–37). At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,836,766 - PTAB · Dec 17, 2021 · PGR2021-00093 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–25 on all petition grounds after finding the § 101 challenge to claim 1 met the institution threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Fintiv sets forth the factors that we weigh in determining whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution of the post-grant patent review proceeding here under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). See Fintiv, Paper 11, 5–6. These factors are: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. “[T]he Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Because the claims at issue here, in particular claim 1, differ from the March 2015 amended claims of the ’859 patent and the August 2014 amended claims of the ’296 patent (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 46:59–47:34), we are not persuaded that the cited prosecution history equally applies to the claims here. In particular, we note that claim 1, which we discuss in the analysis below, does not recite a first transceiver corresponding to a short-range communication mode and a second transceiver corresponding to a long-range communication mode, and does not specify whether a first or second transceiver perform certain actions recited in the claim. Id. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 19), claim 1 of the ’614 patent more but claim 1 does not specify whether it is long or short range and merely recites it being used to establish a connection for the exchange of information between a mobile device and a payment accepting unit in some of the claimed steps. Id. Thus, considering Becton, Dickinson factors (a) and (d), we are not persuaded that the same or substantially the same arguments concerning § 101 were previously presented to the Office. Because we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments with respect to § 101 were not previously presented to the Office, we need not address part two of the Advanced Bionics framework with respect to those arguments.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A [person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a related/equivalent field and at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in electronic payment systems. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–6). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’614 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 22
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionInstituted
“Ex. 1001, 46:61–47:34. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the limitations above recite the concept of identifying a merchant and making a purchase from the merchant. In particular, claim 1 recites steps for identifying payment accepting units (i.e., a merchant) — limitations 1.2– 1.7.1. Claim 1 also recites steps for conducting the purchase —limitations 1.7.2–1.11. Based on the current record, we find that identifying a merchant and making a purchase from the merchant is a commercial interaction, a sales activity. It falls within the enumerated “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,891,614 - Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · PGR2021-00084 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any of claims 1–20 was more likely than not unpatentable on the asserted § 112, § 102, or § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”1 After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur- reply and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because Petitioner’s proposed construction improperly attempts to read a particular embodiment described in the ’608 patent into the claims. It is not proper to read limitations from the ’608 patent into the claims: Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. As Mr. Smith points out, the ’608 patent does describe offline- payment operated machine 1500 as an electro-mechanical machine capable of accepting currency (e.g., coins), which is not connected to any networks (e.g., telephone, cellular, or Wi-Fi). Ex. 1005 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1002, 39:39– 45). But, the ’608 patent describes offline-payment operated machine 1500 as merely one example of an offline-payment operated machine in some implementations. The ’608 patent states: FIG. 28A illustrates a block diagram of an offline-payment operated machine 1500 in accordance with some implementations. For example, the offline-payment operated machine 1500 (e.g., a form of the machine 120) is an electro-mechanical machine capable of accepting currency (e.g., coins), which is not connected to any networks (e.g., telephone, cellular, or Wi-Fi). For example, the offline-payment operated machine 1500 is a washer or dryer at a laundromat, a parking meter, a car wash payment kiosk, or other offline-payment operated machine that dispenses goods and/or services. Ex. 1002, 39:38–48 (emphases added). The ’608 patent emphasizes that offline-payment operated machine 1500 is merely an example. Id. at 39:52– 56 (“The components of the offline-payment operated machine 1500 in FIG. 28A are examples and one of skill in the art will appreciate that various” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A [person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)], as of the date of the alleged invention, would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, or a related/equivalent field and at least three years of work experience in electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or telecommunication solutions. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’608 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), “[t]he specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same . . . .” To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must reasonably convey to skilled artisans that the patentee possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The requirement under § 112 does not demand that the specification recite the claimed invention verbatim. Id. at 1352 (citations omitted). The “claimed subject matter need not be described in haec verba in the specification in order for that specification to satisfy the description requirement.” In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (CCPA 1973). “Original claims are part of the original specification and in many cases will satisfy the written description requirement.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner, itself, indicates that the specification of the ’608 patent discloses an interface module counting the electrical pulses generated by a coin receiving switch. The Petition states: “Specifically, the objective inquiry reveals that it is only the ‘first interface module’ that is mentioned as counting one or more electrical pulses generated by the coin receiving switch.” Pet. 32; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 125 (corresponding testimony of Mr. Smith). In this regard, the ’608 patent states: In FIG. 28A, the first interface module 1522 is configured to sample payment acceptance signals from the microswitch 1502 (e.g., a coin receiving switch) via lead 1532 of the offline-payment operated machine 1500. For example, the payment acceptance signals are indicative of a coin being received by the microswitch 1502 which depress lever 1504. Ex. 1002, 40:35–40. The ’608 patent also describes FIG. 28B as illustrating signals sampled by the first interface module 1522, “[f]or example, the preset sequence of payment acceptance signals indicative of the preset number of coins include pulses (i.e., payment acceptance signals) 1552, 1554, 1556, and 1558.” Id. at 40:50–58; see also id. at 41:59–42:4 (“payment acceptance signals are indicative of a preset number of coins received by the coin receiving switch”); 42:49–55 (describing identifying a count of pulses). The ’608 patent further states: “[T]he terms used for labels (e.g., ‘first,’ ‘second,’ and ‘third’) are meant solely for purposes of designation and not for order or limitation.” Id. at 46:11–14. Claim 19, as originally filed, recited limitation (b), with the coin counting interface module being labeled as the second interface module. Ex. 1003, 283. Given the originally filed claim 19 and the above disclosures of the ’608 patent, Petitioner does not persuade us that the ’608 patent does not reasonably convey to skilled artisans that the patentee did not possess the claimed invention as of the filing date. Petitioner does not show sufficiently that claims 19–20 are more likely than not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,891,608 - Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 15, 2021 · IPR2021-01161 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Philipp and QT60161.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Givargis Declaration (Ex. 1003), which Patent Owner does not address at this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Philipp and QT60161 teaches each claim limitation recited in claim 1 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references in the manner set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated, on this record, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Philipp and QT60161. 4. Claims 2–20 Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’251 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (indicating that a decision whether to institute an inter partes review “requires a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every” slip op. at 18
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Parallel Petitions Challenging the Same Patent. Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). CTPG, 59. Nonetheless, the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide recognizes that “more than one petition may be necessary, including for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. The present circumstance is consistent with the exception referenced in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide because there is a potential dispute about the effective filing date of the ’251 patent, which may require arguments to be made under multiple prior art references. See Paper 3, 2–3. Moreover, Patent Owner has not requested that we exercise our discretion to only consider, at most, one petition. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny this Petition under § 314(a). E.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“implement these functions with a touch screen and to trigger the claimed time duration from detecting a ‘key touch on a/the touch screen’ pursuant to the touch screen teachings of QT60161.” Pet. 36.9 More specifically, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply the timed features of Philipp “to a ‘touch screen’ and to trigger the claimed time duration from detecting a ‘key touch on a/the touch screen.’” Id. at 29. According to Petitioner, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have made such a combination because (1) “the primary timer-based functions described and claimed in the ’251 Patent are not only compatible with the touch screen described in QT60161, but are expressly discussed in QT60161” (id. at 30; see also id. at 3031 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:61– 7:2; Ex. 1017, 7)), 9 The Petition emphasizes the names of prior art references. The emphasis is omitted throughout this Decision. (2) QT60161 and Philipp “are compatible with the same sensor technology” (id. at 31; see also id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1017, 5, Figs. 1-1, 1-2; Ex. 1024 ¶ 48, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶ 52; Ex. 1028, Figs. 1b, 7)), (3) both the ’251 patent and QT60161 are directed to saving power after the passage of time (id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:55–65, 10:41–13:59; Ex. 1017, 11; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97– 103)), and (4) implementing Philipp “with QT60161’s touch screen would have yielded predictable results” (id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97–103)). After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information, including the Givargis Declaration (Ex. 1003), which Patent Owner does not address at this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Philipp and QT60161 teaches each claim limitation recited in claim 1 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references in the manner set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated, on this record, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Philipp and QT60161.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“In evaluating the effective filing date of the ’251 patent, we first address the parties’ respective burdens. In an inter partes review, Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability, which never shifts to patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Dynamic Drinkware also establishes that Petitioner has the initial burden of production to show a reference is prior art. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. However, the burden of production then shifts to Patent Owner to refute Petitioner’s argument by either showing the prior art does not actually render the claims unpatentable or does not qualify as prior art. Id. at 1380. The burden of production then shifts back to Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s argument. Id. The Board then evaluates all of the evidence and determines whether Petitioner has satisfied its burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability. Id. We apply the same framework when considering whether the parties have met their respective burdens at this stage of the proceeding. (2) Application of Dynamic Drinkware Based on the current status of the proceedings, we are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production under Dynamic Drinkware. Specifically, Petitioner identifies two claim terms— “touch screen” and “key touch on a/the touch screen”—that are recited in each of the independent claims and were added to the ’274 application. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002, 38–41); see also id. at 11–17. Additionally, as discussed below, Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that the combination of Philipp and QT60161 teaches each of the limitations of the claims of the ’251 patent. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.2d at 1379 (finding Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production by arguing that the prior art rendered the claims unpatentable). Because Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production, the burden of production now shifts to Patent Owner to argue or produce evidence that either (1) the prior art does not render the claims unpatentable or (2) that Philipp is not prior art because the asserted claims of the ’251 patent are entitled to the benefit of a filing date (constructive or otherwise) prior to Philipp. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. Because Patent Owner—as is its right—chose not to file a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, for purposes of institution only, Patent Owner did not meet its burden of production to show that the ’251 patent is entitled to a filing date earlier than Philipp.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,251 - Dolby Laboratories, Inc. v. Intertrust Technologies CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2021 · IPR2020-01123 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9 and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Arnold and obvious over Arnold; Petitioner did not show they were obvious over Chang and Stefik.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“do not agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to combine Stefik’s tamper resistant barrier with Chang. Petitioner argues that a tamper resistant barrier would enhance security and would further Chang’s goal of allowing only authorized code to be executed on its platform. Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:55–59; Ex. 1006, 27:11–15). We agree with Patent Owner that this reason to combine is too general and conclusory to explain how the specific modification of securing Chang’s public keys behind a tamper resistant barrier would have provided a relevant benefit to the combination beyond Chang’s own secure distribution system that provides security, without placing the public key behind a tamper resistant barrier. We determine that such a generalized and conclusory reason for combining Chang and Stefik is insufficient. Magnum, 829 F.3d at 1380 (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). Specifically, Chang discloses that platform producers desire to allow only authorized code to be executed on their platform. Ex. 1005, 8:55–59. This is done by identifying the software that will execute on their platform. Id. at 8:60–62. Chang provides a solution to this problem by using software passports that include digital signatures. Id. at 8:65–9:48. Chang’s solution involves using a public key which is not kept behind a tamper resistant barrier. Id. Thus, Petitioner’s proposed motivation to combine to “enhance security” (Pet. 64) and to allow only authorized code to be executed on a platform does not explain why the public key would have to be kept behind a tamper resistant barrier. In response to the argument that its motivation is too conclusory, Petitioner further explains that its proposed motivation to combine (a platform producer’s desire to allow only authorized code on their platforms) would have motivated a POSITA to secure Chang’s public key behind a tamper resistant barrier to prevent a user from replacing the key. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:55–59). We agree with Patent Owner that this motivation suffers from hindsight bias as it is the same motivation disclosed in the ʼ721 patent itself for securing public keys behind a tamper resistant barrier. Ex. 1001, 14:23–28 (“In addition, maintaining the ‘public’ key within a tamper resistant environment forecloses the significant threat that the owner of protected processing environment 108 may himself attack the environment.”). Petitioner does not provide evidence that the motivation of preventing the user themselves from replacing the public key was a known problem in the industry or that it stems from either Chang or Stefik. Without such evidence, we conclude that Petitioner’s articulated reason for reconstruction. Sci. Plastic Prod., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The pertinence of the reference as a source of solution to the inventor’s problem must be recognizable with the foresight of a person of ordinary skill, not with the hindsight of the inventor’s successful achievement.”).” slip op. at 47
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“parties, we are persuaded that Arnold discloses limitation (c) of claim 9. Arnold discloses an adapter card with a secured area. Ex. 1004, 5:49–51 (describing that the microprocessor, memory, and cryptographic functions of Arnold’s cryptographic system are “housed within a secured area or module” of an adapter card); Pet. 49–50. Arnold describes the secured area of its adapter card as an area “where data is protected from disclosure” (Ex. 1004, 5:10) and “which is protected from physical and direct electrical access” (Ex. 1004, 10:47–48). Pet. 49–50. These disclosures indicate that the secured area of Arnold’s adapter card is a “tamper resistant barrier” that prevents the data stored within from read access and, therefore, keeps the data “hidden from the user” as recited in limitation (c). We also credit Dr. Chatterjee’s testimony that, based on Arnold’s description of the secured area of the adapter card, the secured area forms a tamper resistant barrier that keeps data stored within, hidden from the user. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 141–144 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:56–57, 5:9–12, 5:52–53, 6:13–32, 6:28–30, 6:51–52, 6:55–59). Arnold makes clear that the “secured area of the card . . . contains the public key KPU” (Ex. 1004, 6:51–52) and that “said public key (KPU) is stored within said secured area.” Ex. 1004, 12:25; see also id. at 12:42 (“means for providing a public key (KPU) within said secure areas”); Pet. Reply 9. Dr. Chatterjee’s testimony, which we determine to be credible, also supports Petitioner’s contention that Arnold’s public key is within the secured area of Arnold’s adapter card. Ex. 1002 ¶ 143 (“The public key is secured behind a tamper resistant barrier and therefore hidden from the user.”). in the secure area of Arnold’s adapter card and that (2) the secure area protects data from disclosure and prevents physical and direct electrical access.5 Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Arnold’s public key is “secured behind a tamper resistant barrier and therefore hidden from the user” as recited in claim 9.” slip op. at 33
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposals do not differ in any meaningful way to the issues in dispute. We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we delete the qualifier “a minimum” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of education. The qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing a Ph.D. degree and beyond, and thus does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition of a POSITA is supported by the testimony of Dr. Chatterjee and is commensurate with the level of ordinary skill as reflected in the prior art and the ’721 patent. We note, however, that our analysis would be the same under either party’s definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues the term “load module” recited in claim 9 should be construed as “executable code, such as a computer program or an applet, plus any associated data required for code execution.” Pet. 19. To support this proposed construction, Petitioner cites the Specification’s statements that “[l]oad modules may contain algorithms, data, cryptographic keys, shared secrets, and/or other information that permits a load module to interact with other system components,” and “[f]or a load module to operate and interact as intended, it must execute without unauthorized modification.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:28–35); see also id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:36, 4:51–56, 5:34–39). Petitioner also points to the “Field of the Invention” section of the ’721 patent, which provides that “[t]he present invention relates to . . . techniques for certifying load modules such as executable computer programs or fragments [(called ‘applets’)] thereof as being authorized for use by a protected or secure processing environment.” Id. at 20 (alterations in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:17–28) (citing Ex. 1001, 2:33–37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–69). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the construction adopted in co-pending litigation of the related matters, in which the term was construed to mean “executable code and any associated data.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2007, 44). Nevertheless, Patent Owner contends that the term “load module” does not require construction and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. Patent Owner further asserts that construction of this term is not necessary to resolve the matters presently in dispute and that its arguments would apply equally under the construction of the co-pending litigation or under a plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Id. we agree with Patent Owner that no explicit construction of this phrase is necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties. 2. “associated digital signature” Patent Owner points out that “the District Court [for the Eastern District of Texas] adopted a construction of ‘associated digital signature’ as ‘a digital value, verifiable with a public key, that can be used to determine the source and integrity of the load module/executable.’” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2001, 1). Nevertheless, Patent Owner contends that the term “associated digital signature” does not require construction and that its arguments would apply equally under the District Court’s construction or a plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Id. at 23. Petitioner does not provide its own construction of the term “associated digital signature.” Based on the arguments presented by the parties, we agree with Patent Owner that no explicit construction of this term is necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 6,157,721 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,157,721 - PTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-01029 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 12–14, finding a reasonable likelihood that Atarashiya anticipates them because the claims likely lack the parent application's written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’654 patent, and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–7 and 12–14 of the ’654 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“on the current record, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently met its burden to show, for purposes of institution, that the Parent Application does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of a liquid crystal device that has both (1) a pixel electrode as the second electrode and a common electrode as the first electrode, and (2) a light shielding film configured to overlap with the second electrode (i.e., the pixel electrode) which is bent in plan view, as required by independent claims 1 and 14.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“On the present record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient threshold showing that limitations [1.12] and [1.13] in independent claim 1 (and the similar limitations in independent claim 14) lack written description support in the Parent Application. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the challenged claims in the ’654 patent are not entitled to the benefit of the March 4, 2009 filing date of the Parent Application. This determination is preliminary in nature and based on the record at this stage of the proceeding. We invite the parties to develop these arguments further at trial, to the extent permitted under our rules. D. Anticipation by Atarashiya Petitioner contends that claims 1–7 and 12–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Atarashiya. Pet. 14, 26–64. Atarashiya published on September 10, 2009. Ex. 1004, code (43). As set forth above, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the ’654 patent is not entitled to the March 4, 2009 filing date of the Parent Application. Accordingly, on the present record, there appears to be a reasonable likelihood that Atarashiya qualifies as prior art because it was published more than one year before the November 20, 2014 filing date of the ’654 patent. See Ex. 1001, code (22).” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“On the present record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient threshold showing that limitations [1.12] and [1.13] in independent claim 1 (and the similar limitations in independent claim 14) lack written description support in the Parent Application. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the challenged claims in the ’654 patent are not entitled to the benefit of the March 4, 2009 filing date of the Parent Application. This determination is preliminary in nature and based on the record at this stage of the proceeding. We invite the parties to develop these arguments further at trial, to the extent permitted under our rules.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,310,654 - Genus PLC v. Inguran, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-01027 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5 on all three grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be anticipated or obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)(2020). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Supreme Court held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least “an undergraduate or graduate degree in genetics, genomics, and/or animal breeding, along with several years of relevant applied research and/or industry work experience in the same fields, including in swine” and “would have been well-acquainted with methods of commercial breeding of lines and breeds within a genetic nucleus for the purpose of promoting genetic progress, the use of sex-selected semen in breeding schemes, including those within the genetic nucleus, genetic evaluation of livestock for desirable and undesirable traits, and the use of genetic markers, e.g., SNPs, and various other genotype data, to guide selection strategies to 1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16, 2013. Because the priority application from which the ’734 patent issued was filed before that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version. 2 Petitioner contends that claims 1–5 are anticipated by Dekkers, as evidenced by either Maxwell, Garner, or Kim. Pet. 26–41. Alternatively, Petitioner contends that claims 1–5 are obvious over Dekkers and either Maxwell, Garner, or Kim. Pet. 41–45. 3 In the table identifying ground III, Petitioner does not list Kim. Pet. 4. However, in the arguments provided for this ground in regard to claim 5, Petitioner includes Kim. Pet. 48. improve desirable traits and/or minimize undesirable traits.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Patent Owner states, “[s]olely for purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner and its expert apply this portion of Petitioner’s proposal, while reserving the right to dispute it later.” Prelim. Resp. 17. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as Patent Owner also does. We also note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B. Principles of Law” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“would not find the additional language in Petitioner’s proposed definition accurate in describing a genetic nucleus. Prelim Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). Patent Owner contends “that the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘genetic nucleus’ is ‘an animal herd comprising one or more lines and positioned at the top of a multi-level pyramidal hierarchy of herds in a commercial herd breeding structure.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 24 (“The ’734 Patent does not specify this additional requirement as part of the meaning of ‘genetic nucleus,’ nor would the additional language be accurate in describing every genetic nucleus.”). On the present record, Petitioner has the better argument. The ’734 specification describes pig breeding as pyramid with the “nucleus herd” at the top of the pyramid and commercial farms at the bottom. Ex. 1001, 9:43– 44. “A nucleus herd is typically comprised of 12 to 15 lines, although any number of lines may be represented, with each line comprising a number of desirable traits. . . . Only the offspring with the highest measured selection index are retained in the nucleus herd.” Id. at 9:47–49. The retention of offspring with the most desirable features in the nucleus herd reasonably implies that these individuals are selected to propagate the desirable trait in the nucleus heard. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we construe “genetic nucleus” as “an animal herd comprising one or more lines and positioned at the top of a multi-level pyramidal hierarchy of herds in a commercial herd breeding structure, wherein certain offspring of the herd are used for breeding within the herd.”” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“the context of artificial insemination for the purpose of directing piglet production toward creating predominantly male or female offspring. Petitioner’s expert explains that the state of the art at the time the invention was made required at least an 80% or better sex sorted semen in order to be able to use the sorted semen in to skew the piglet production in a littler to be either predominantly female or male offspring. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 113. Specifically, Petitioner’s expert avers that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “[f]rom a commercial pig production perspective, using semen with less than 80% sex skew (i.e., purity for X or Y chromosomes) would not be efficient or economical, and consumers (e.g., pig producers) would not purchase such poorly enriched samples.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 113. Petitioner’s expert testimony is supported by the teachings of Maxwell (Ex. 1005) and Garner (Ex. 1006), both of which are expressly cited in Dekkers as evidencing “sperm sexing technology . . . for the production of either male or female offspring for sire or dam lines.” See Ex. 1004, 396, 420, 422. In particular, Maxwell teaches that “[i]n combination with the orientating nozzle and changes in the design of the sorter electronics, this allowed significant increases in sorting rates (15 million spermatozoa per hour) to be achieved while maintaining more than 85% purity.” Ex. 1005, 81. In addition, Gardner teaches that “acceptable sperm sexing efficiency, usually at 90% accuracy.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. Based on the current record, Petitioner’s expert testimony reasonably supports the position that Dekkers application of sex sorting technology at the level of the nucleus or multiplication tiers would require at least an 80% sex sorting efficiency. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner is improperly relying on Maxwell and Garner in order to support its anticipation argument over Dekkers. Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Callaway Golf Col. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). On the record at the stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made an adequate showing to supports its anticipation argument. In particular, Dekkers disclosure of using sex sorted semen to allow for the production of either male or female offspring for sire or dam lines, reasonably suggests that the sorted sperm is at a sufficient purity level to achieve the stated result. Ex. 1004, 396. Petitioner relies on the testimony of its expert to establish that at the time the invention was made one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that 80% or better sex sorted semen is a necessary level in order to skew the sex of the litter. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 113. Here, Petitioner’s expert testimony is supported by the teachings of either Maxwell (Ex. 1005) or Garner (Ex. 1006) to establish the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Dekkers publication. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner is improperly relying on Maxwell and Garner. Accordingly, having considered the arguments and evidence presented by the parties at this stage, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Dekkers discloses the claim limitations of element 1c.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,542,734 - Netskope, Inc. v. Bitglass, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00091 · APJ James J Mayberry · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 12–16; the Board found the petition showed a more-likely-than-not basis that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the Challenged Claims of the ’671 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsOther
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion to deny the Petition in this proceeding, or the petition in PGR2021-00092. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner filed two petitions challenging the same patent without justifying the need for two petitions. Id. at 3–15. We exercise our discretion to not institute trial in PGR2021-00092, because Petitioner did not justify two petitions challenging the ’671 patent.13 In view of the denial of institution of PGR2021-00092, we need not consider further Patent Owner’s arguments on discretionary denial in this Decision.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not define the level of ordinary skill and, instead, states that we should “apply[] the Petition’s asserted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 44. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’671 patent, based on our review of the limited record.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that no claim terms need an express construction. Pet. 25. Patent Owner states that “the Petition does not appear to present any issues that require the Board to construe the claims to resolve the issues at the institution stage.” Prelim. Resp. 44. We agree with the parties that, at least at this stage of the proceeding, we need not expressly construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,855,671 - Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Dynaenergetics Europe GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00089 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“We are authorized to institute a post-grant review where a petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged patent claim is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324. We are never compelled to institute a review, however, because institution is discretionary. Id.; cf. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”). As in an IPR proceeding, we deny post-grant review, for example, where a petition fails to identify “with particularity” the challenges or evidence supporting them. Cf. Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363; 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would be expected to have at least a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two years of industry experience related to assembling, operating, and/or designing perforating tools.” Pet. 10 (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 28). Patent Owner “believes that Petitioner’s definition suggests that a field technician who merely assembles guns could be a POSITA, which is incorrect,” and instead proposes “a POSITA would be expected to have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two (2) years of industry experience related to designing perforating gun systems.” Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 52). For the purposes of institution, we do not see a material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. Nonetheless, because Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the record, including the prior art, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner for purposes of this Decision. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction We interpret a 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).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2020). This standard requires that we construe claims “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim[s] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an AIA trial proceeding). Patent Owner proposes constructions for “shaped charge receptacle” and “retention mechanism extending from a portion of the body.” Prelim. Resp. 36–38; see also PO Sur-reply 1–5. In its Reply, Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Pet. Reply 2–3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires explicit construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“In addition, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently explained its alternative argument based on the “simple substitution of the circular openings (for inserting the shaped charges) in Vann for the circular openings with tabs in Von Kaenel.” Pet. 90 (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 485). As an initial matter, Petitioner’s proposed substitution lacks sufficient clarity because it remains unclear which of Vann’s structures remain in the resulting combination. By emphasizing substitution of the “circular openings” alone in Vann, Petitioner suggests that Vann’s tabs 62 remain without explaining why the tabs are necessary if Von Kaenel’s tabs retain the shaped charges. See id. As discussed, Vann requires that the plurality of charge holders are placed in tandem and jointly cooperate together to make up a charge carrier 48. Ex. 1009, 5:50–56. To do so, tabs 62 formed by extended lateral edges 56, 58 are aligned in an overhanging relationship relative to the central lateral face 70 of the two adjacent charge holders. Id. at 6:61–64, Fig. 5. If the proposed combination employs Von Kaenel’s tabs to retain the charges, preserving the overhanging relationship of Vann’s tabs 62 to retain the charges would appear superfluous, and if Petitioner proposes retaining Vann’s tabs 62 but removing the overhanging relationship, Petitioner does not describe such a structure. In either case, a substitution of Vann’s circular openings alone while Vann’s tabs 62 remain in the resulting combination lacks adequate specificity and support. For completeness, we assess Petitioner’s argument based on the assumption that Petitioner proposes removing Vann’s tabs 62 entirely from the proposed combination. Per this theory, a POSITA would have simply substituted Von Kaenel’s side locking tabs 610 for Vann’s tabs 62 because a POSITA would have recognized the advantages of having the retention mechanisms be a part of the body in order reduce the number of tools and assembly required, to allow for differing offsets, as well as to simplify manufacturing, as discussed in each of Vann, Brooks, and Von Kaenel. Pet. 89–90 (emphasis added) (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 484; Ex. 1013, Abstract, 2:60–3:16, 5:20–41, 8:41–58; Ex. 1009, 1:18–21, 2:22–29, 1:66–67, 1:41– 43, 3:63–68, 4:14–24; Ex. 1010, 9:48–53, 1:52–64). However, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how this substitution would “simplify manufacturing” for Vann’s specific stacked formation. Indeed, Vann’s charge carrier is formed by a plurality of charge holders that jointly cooperate in tandem, which includes the cooperation of extended lateral edges that overhang the central lateral face of adjacent charge holders. See Ex. 1009, 6:61–64; Fig. 5. Substitution of Vann’s tabs 62 with Von Kaenel’s side locking tabs 610 would affect Vann’s tandem construction if tabs 62 are removed. See Pet. 80–95. More importantly, Petitioner has failed to explain adequately why a POSITA would have sought to make this combination to simplify manufacturing or reduce assembly given Vann’s specific charge carrier design, which is dependent on the overhanging relationship between separate, stacked charge holders. Id. Further, Mr. Parrott’s testimony is not helpful on this point. In paragraph 485 (cited by Petitioner), Mr. Parrott states that Von Kaenel’s tabs (retention mechanisms) would have been applied with ease to Vann’s perforating gun apparatus, which would have yielded predictable results. A POSITA would have recognized the combination as a simple substitution of the circular openings for inserting the shaped charges in Vann for the circular openings with tabs in Von Kaenel, and a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Parrott Decl. ¶ 485 (emphases added). Like the Petition, these statements by Mr. Parrott are conclusory and do not explain the basis for his conclusions. See id. Looking elsewhere, paragraph 484 mirrors statements and citations in the Petition, which as discussed, are insufficient. Id. ¶ 484. And although paragraph 483 articulates the advantages of using “Von Kaenel’s superior teachings in order to better achieve the goal of reliably securing and positioning the shaped charges,” Mr. Parrott neglects to explain the proposed substitution in the context of Vann’s specific charge carrier design that relies on the overhanging edges/tabs of the charge holders for the in tandem assembly and construction. Id. ¶ 483 (citing Ex. 1013, Fig. 6B, 8:59–67). The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention. Id. Here, Petitioner has failed to make the threshold showing for the” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,844,696
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.