- Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityInstitutedPTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00989 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“§ 315(b) is unavailing. Rule 42.104(b) requires a petitioner to state in its petition “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3), (b)(4). The Petition states “[t]he Board construes the claims ‘using the same claim construction standard that would be used’ in district courts.” Pet. 20. We disagree that Rule 42.104(b) or the CTPG requires Petitioner to make any specific statement if it takes the position that no express construction of claim terms is required. Rather, the CTPG states that “a petitioner may include a statement that the claim terms require no express construction.” CTPG 44.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“We use a two-part framework to analyze a request to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). First, we determine “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.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Second, if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, then we consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims.” Id. In applying this framework, we refer to the non-exclusive factors delineated in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph). These factors are: a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; b) the cumulative nature of 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 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. Id. at 17–18.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in 2003 would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner further states that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claims would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78). Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 9. We find, on the current record, that the ’539 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’539 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner propose no express construction for any claim term, at least with regard to the alleged obviousness grounds of unpatentability. See Pet. 20. In regard to the alleged anticipation grounds, Petitioner contends “the patient is in an awake state when there is an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep,” and asserts this is an “implied construction of ‘an awake state’ based on [Patent Owner’s] infringement allegations” in district court. Id. at 68, 70. Patent Owner proposes no express construction of any claim term and states “no claim terms are in controversy.” Prelim. Resp. 10. In light of our determinations below, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,539 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (citing 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)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 48
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308 - Termax Company v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00106 · APJ Rae Lynn P Guest · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on the sole design claim because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Scroggie or obviousness over Scroggie, Scroggie and Benedetti, or Benedetti and Scroggie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Scroggie is based entirely on the premise that we cannot consider the appearance of the lower platform. See Pet. 32 (“Factoring out unclaimed features and the functional aspects of the lower platform, a side-by-side comparison of the remaining aspects of the claimed design . . . illustrates the D’826 design is identical in all material respects to Scroggie and is anticipated . . . .”). Indeed, on the record before us, Petitioner does not address the design as a whole, to the extent that it includes the appearance of the lower platform, in order to show that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would deem the design depicted in Scroggie to have the same overall visual appearance as that claimed in the ’826 patent. Rather, Petitioner asserts that “there are no differences between Scroggie and the claimed design.” Pet. 41. Indeed, on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that the lower platform is significant to the overall appearance of the fastener design, and thus Petitioner’s analysis is not sufficient on this record. Because we disagree with Petitioner’s premise that the lower platform’s appearance is primarily dictated by function, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to this ground.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“platform is not visible “at all times during the fastener’s normal use,” but is “hidden from view.” Pet. 24. Again, the use of the fastener is not limited to use with a seal for a vehicle. Petitioner provides no evidence of manufacturing techniques, sales, advertising, or installation, to support the contention that “[f]rom manufacture, sale and installation, the lower platform is enshrouded by the perimeter seal.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 65). And, although Petitioner relies on Mr. Wheelock’s testimony, that testimony is unsupported on the record before us. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 65 (failing to identify any support for his opinion). Accordingly, we give Mr. Wheelock’s testimony on this point little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Additionally, as noted above, we are not persuaded that a seal is a necessary component for a general fastener, and, thus, we are not persuaded that fasteners are not manufactured or sold without seals attached. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that such a position is not supported by case law.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person having at least a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years of experience in push-in fastener engineering, and specifically sealing fasteners, as used in the assembly of vehicle trims.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 37). Patent Owner argues that the Petitioner’s definition leaves out a key detail “that the person actually has to be a ‘designer’” and “incorrectly alleges that the person at issue need only be someone with ‘experience’ with push-in fastener ‘engineering,’ without any experience whatsoever in designing them.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. However, Patent Owner also asserts that an ordinary designer is “[a] person having an engineering degree and at least three years of experience in designing fasteners with designs similar to the ‘D826 patent, or comparable qualifications acquired through work experience.” Id. at 12 (bold emphasis added). Because Patent Owner’s definition includes qualifications acquired through “work experience” broadly, we think the parties’ definitions are quite close. In particular, neither definition strictly requires three years of design experience in fasteners; rather, each includes comparable qualifications through other work experiences in fastener technology. Accordingly, the result is not impacted based on whether we rely on Petitioner’s definition or Patent Owner’s definition of the skilled artisan. Further, based on the limited record before us, we note that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art designs of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In construing the design claim, if the particular appearance of a design aspect is dictated by its function, the functional element’s appearance cannot significantly contribute to an ornamental design because it would necessarily have the same appearance in any other device where it serves the same function. Sport Dimension, 820 F.3d at 1321 (“[T]he fact finder should not focus on the particular designs of these elements when determining infringement, but rather focus on what these elements contribute to the design’s overall ornamentation.”). Accordingly, if a feature is shown in the prior art as a whole having a variety of appearances and yet serves the same function, the appearance is likely not critical to its function, or that feature would have looked identical in each device’s design. See Best Lock, 94 F.3d at 1566 (“A design is not dictated solely by its function when alternative designs for the article of manufacture are available.”); L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123 (“When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.”). Thus, to determine what visual aspects of a design are primarily functional, any analysis must consider how that feature appears throughout the prior art and whether and what aspects of that feature appear consistently.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Aml IP LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00319 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds and claims 1–13 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Armes, alone or with Steury or Maritzen, rendered the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to satisfy both the “bridge computer” and at least one “service provider computer,” we do not see how the method steps recited in limitations B, Ci, and Cii are satisfied. Petitioner’s attempt to satisfy these steps with Armes’s card provider 3 computer (i.e., as the “bridge computer”) raises multiple questions that persuade us Petitioner has not demonstrated by a reasonable likelihood that these limitations are satisfied. For example, to satisfy the recited “service providers,” Petitioner relies on “incentive rewards [or MR] companies.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 52, 59, 87); see also id. at 40 (relying on MR company to satisfy limitation B); see also id. at 41 (relying on MR company to satisfy limitation Ci); see also id. at 43 (relying on MR company to satisfy limitation Cii). Petitioner also cites to the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich. See, e.g., id. at 39– 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124). The Petition does not clearly explain how Armes’s “bridge computer” (i.e., the card provider’s computer system) makes a “determin[ation] from among the plurality of service providers,” however, when the card provider itself is a service provider. The testimony of Mr. Zatkovich does not relieve our confusion. Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony merely parrots, verbatim, that which is in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124, with Pet. 39–41. Although Petitioner and Mr. Zatkovich cite to Armes, the citations are to disjointed disclosure whose relevance is not clearly apparent. See Fritch, 972 F.2d 1266 (“one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art”); see also Karsten, 242 F.3d at 1383 (“[To establish anticipation,] all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.”). For instance, Mr. Zatkovich cites to both Armes’s back end application service 8 and STN system 18 for performing the step of “determining from among the plurality of service providers . . . whether the given vendor is associated with the same [or different] service provider.” See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 124; see also Pet. 40; see also supra § I.D. It is not clear to us, however, how “STN system 18” and “backend application service 8”—both acting as the “bridge computer”—perform the step of “determining from among the plurality of service providers . . . whether the given vendor is associated with the same [or different] service provider,” as recited in claim 1. In support of his assertions, Mr. Zatkovich quotes Armes’s disclosure that “CAS 7 recognizes the transaction as involving a STN 15, and forwards the request to the STN system 18” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 122, citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 109)) and “backend application service 8, upon receiving a STN 15, recognizes the associated PPC originated with another card issuer 92” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 124 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 95)). Even if “CAS 7 recognizes the transaction as involving a STN 15,” for example, we do not see this as performing the step of “determining whether the given vendor is associated with the same service provider,” as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 40. As explained above, Armes uses STNs to improve credit card security (supra § II.D.1), and the computer system’s mere recognition that “the transaction [] involve[es] a STN” is not a determination of “whether the given vendor is associated with the same service provider.”” slip op. at 36
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that a POSITA “would have at least one or two years of experience with payment or credit systems,” as Petitioner proposes (see Pet. 17), or “would have at least a Master of Science [] Degree . . . or equivalent work experience in the field of computer networks,” as Patent Owner proposes. See Prelim. Resp. 6. Rather, we adopt a hybrid of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. For purposes of this Decision, we find that a POSITA at the time of the invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related study along with knowledge of the general structure of payment or credit systems, its hardware and software components.” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Both parties acknowledge and agree with the final Claim Construction Order. See Pet. 14; see also Prelim. Resp. 4. We further note that the claims of the ’979 patent “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). For purposes of this Decision, we consider and adopt the District Court’s claim construction of “bridge computer” in our analysis. Id. (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). 2. “service provider” In the Claim Construction Order, the court concluded that the term “service provider” shall mean “a business that provides internet-related services to customers.” Ex. 1017, 1. Petitioner does not propose a construction of this term. See Pet. 11– 16. Patent Owner, on the other hand, expounds upon the District Court’s claim construction, submitting that there are two different types of “service providers”: (1) “A service provider of [the] type may maintain a virtual presence on the web in the form of a web site”; and (2) one that “may offer on-line access to customers (e.g., broadband or dial-up Internet access using an Internet account associated with the service).” See Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Patent Owner does not dispute the District Court’s interpretation, however, and acknowledges that “[t]hese different types of service providers are referred to collectively herein as ‘service providers’ or ‘Internet service providers’.” Id. 5. For purposes of this Decision, we consider and adopt the District Court’s claim construction of “service provider” in our analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner improperly uses hindsight “to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in [Armes] to deprecate the claimed invention.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (quoting In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988))); see also Karsten, 242 F.3d at 1383 (“[To establish anticipation,] all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.”).” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,876,979 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,539,474 - Glux Visual Effects Tech (Shenzhen) Co. / Leyard Optoelectronic Co. et al. v. Ultravision Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2021 · IPR2020-01050 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 9, 13, and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Guoshi; claims 7, 18, 22–24, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not set forth an ordinary artisan’s skill level. See generally PO Resp. Rather, Mr. Credelle, Patent Owner’s expert, states that he “do[es] not disagree with Mr. Flasck’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 29. In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s explanation and assessment of the ordinary skill level, determining the position was consistent with the ’294 patent and the asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 12–13. As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding Accordingly, we reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have: (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or physics, or undergraduate training in an equivalent field, and (ii) at least two years of experience in the design and/or implementation of LED panels. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education. See id. at 12 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 43–49).” slip op. at 11
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“be construed so as to not include a cabinet. PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner points out that “[t]he District Court construed the term ‘modular display panel’ to mean ‘interchangeable display panel for a multi-panel modular display configured for use without a cabinet.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1019, 18). And, that “[t]he District Court further construed ‘cabinet’ to mean ‘enclosure separate from the LED panel(s) to protect the LED panel(s) from the environment, including water.’” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1021). Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner has agreed to this construction in the District Court proceeding. Id. at 18 n.1 (citing Exs. 2007, 2008). Petitioner does not dispute this construction. During oral hearing Petitioner’s Counsel stated “I think that the parties agree that the display module of the challenged claims do not employ a cabinet.” Tr. 13:33–23. Based on the parties’ apparent agreement, and considering the record before us and the District Court’s Claim Construction Memorandum (Ex. 1019), we see no reason not to apply the District Court’s claim construction. See 37 CFR § 42.100(b) (Providing that any claim construction determination in a related civil action must be considered by the Board.). Accordingly, “modular display panel” means “interchangeable display panel for a multi-panel modular display configured for use without a cabinet.” Ex. 1019, 18.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“relevant to the claim construction analysis” and “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citation omitted). The ’294 patent Specification reveals that the electronic display panels are intended to be used in interior and also exterior weather dependent environments, and without a cabinet. See Ex. 1001, 5:36–43, 58– 60 (The detailed description explaining that “[t]hese displays are designed to protect against weather, without a heavy cabinet,” and that, “weather is the number one culprit for damage to LED displays.”). The ’294 patent further describes LED panels where “the display is IP 67 rated and therefore waterproof and corrosion resistant, . . . in other embodiments, equipment can be designed with an IP 68 rating to operate completely underwater.” Id at 5:48–55. The ’294 patent describes further that, “where weatherproofing is not as significant, the panels can have an IP 65 or IP 66 rating.” Id. at 5:56– 57. 7 Exhibit 2010 replaces Exhibit 2004 which was a “rough draft transcript” that was uncertified. Ex. 2004, 1:9. During the hearing, the panel requested a certified transcript of the deposition record. See Tr. 5:22–6:16. We refer to the certified transcript, Ex. 2010, in this opinion. See Ex. 2010, 161. waterproofing where the higher the IP rating the more waterproof the device becomes. Id. at 5:48–57. Thus, the term “waterproof,” on its face, can cover a range of environmental conditions and IP ratings including “normal weather,” such as snow, rain, and fog as Mr. Flask confirmed during his deposition. Ex. 2010, 31:24–25, 33:10–13. In his Declaration, Mr. Flask also testifies that there are a range of waterproof enclosures, “IP 65 indicates a dust tight enclosure that is waterproof against jets of water[,] and IP 68 indicates a dust tight enclosure that is waterproof against continuous immersion in water.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 58 (citing Ex. 1016, 3). Considered as a whole, Mr. Flask’s testimony is consistent with the ’294 patent Specification—namely that a “waterproof” display can include protection from normal weather conditions as well as when “operat[ing] completely underwater.” Ex. 1001, 5:55.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Guoshi fairly explains that the LEDs are attached on one side, and the power and control modules are attached on the other, i.e. first and second, sides of the printed circuit board. Ex. 1008 ¶ 27. Guoshi states that “[t]he LED light emitting units (21) and the power module (22) are separately situated on the two opposite surfaces of the circuit board (20).” Id. Guoshi describes further that “[t]he LED light emitting units (21) are situated on the first surface (28), and the power module (22) and control module are both situated above this second surface (29) and fit with the main body (12).” Reading this description as a whole, we find Guoshi’s description straightforward. Given a plain and ordinary reading of this description we understand that Guoshi’s LEDs are “attached to a first side of the printed circuit board,” and on the opposite side that the power and control module are also “attached to the printed circuit board,” and within “a recess” of the casing as recited in claim 1. Also, there is no dispute that Guoshi teaches the” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 9,978,294 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,978,294 - Avery Dennison Rfid Company / Avery Dennison Retail Information Services LLC v. Evrythng LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 16, 2021 · IPR2021-00865 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–26 were unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. As Petitioner argues, Gentile does discuss the use of a scanner to add “additional information” to a unique record for an object, however, Gentile does not disclose the use of a scanner to read a unique identifier for an object during the creation of an association between the unique identifier and an object as required by the claims. Id. at 23–26; see Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 59–61, 65–72. Gentile discloses that “[a]t the time and “stored in product information database 108.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 59, 65. Gentile also discloses that at the time the product record associated with the identifier is stored, additional information can be added that could come from a scanning device. Id. ¶¶ 66–67. However, this “additional information” is disclosed as information in addition to the unique identifier. Id. ¶ 67. It is only after the initial association has been created that a scanner is disclosed in Gentile as being used to scan the unique identification tag on a product. Id. ¶¶ 61, 69–70. The claim requires that a scan be performed to determine an identifier for an object, “and then” that the identifier is used to add the object to the object information service, but this is not disclosed by Gentile’s process of creating an association between a unique product identifier and a database record (as disclosed in Figure 2 of Gentile and related disclosure) or by Gentile’s process of scanning a unique product identifier to access an already extant record (as disclosed in Figure 3 of Gentile and related disclosure). Petitioner’s showing relies on elements from each of these two separate processes, for example relying on Gentile’s disclosures of a device scanning a QR code on an object to obtain the identifier (Pet. 42–44) for step (b) and then on the disclosures relating to the initial association of the identifier with a database record for step (c) (Pet. 45–47).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–11, 13–18, and 21–26 over Gentile and Massé Petitioner’s arguments regarding the unpatentability of claims 1–11, 13–18, and 21–26 rely on the arguments made with respect to anticipation of claim 1 by Gentile. Pet. 58–62. Therefore, for the same reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing claims 1–11, 13–18, and 21–26 would have been obvious over Gentile and Massé. F. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–11, 13–18, and 20–26 over Gentile and Harris Petitioner’s arguments regarding the unpatentability of claims 1–11, 13–18, and 20–26 rely on the arguments made with respect to anticipation of claim 1 by Gentile. Pet. 62–74. Petitioner does describe Harris as teaching a portion of step (c) of claim 1, however, Petitioner’s argument is that Harris teaches providing “product updates” in order to “update” the records in the ¶¶ 343–345). Petitioner argues that a product ID is included in such updates, and that therefore, “the product updates of Harris include ‘a unique identifier’ and are provided to the ‘product identification database’” via an API. Id. at 69–70. However, Petitioner does not provide any teaching that addresses the deficiency noted in the ground with respect to anticipation over Gentile – and there is no discussion of any teaching of Harris which, alone or in combination with Gentile, would describe the required determination of an identifier for an object that is unique within the information service, which is obtained at a device and then used to add an object to the object information service so as to be accessible using the unique identifier. For this reason, and for the reasons described with respect to the anticipation of claim 1 by Gentile, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing claims 1–11, 13–18, and 21–26 would have been obvious over Gentile and Harris. G. Asserted Obviousness over Combinations including Boncyk Relying on arguments regarding anticipation by Gentile and obviousness over Gentile and Massé or Gentile and Harris, Petitioner argues that certain claims are unpatentable over a combination of Gentile and Boncyk (claims 1–11, 13–18, and 21–26), Gentile, Massé, and Boncyk (claims 1–11, 13–18, and 20–26), and Gentile, Harris, and Boncyk. Pet. 74– 80. These arguments incorporate by reference the prior arguments, describing a different location for the identification mechanism of step (b) of claim 1. Id. Again, no teaching is identified that addresses the deficiency noted in the grounds upon which these arguments rely. anticipation by Gentile and obviousness over Gentile and Massé or Gentile and Harris, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing claims 1–11, 13–18, and 21–26 would have been obvious over Gentile and Boncyk, or that claims 1–11, 13–18, and 20–26) would have been obvious over Gentile, Massé, and Boncyk or over Gentile, Harris, and Boncyk. H. Asserted Obviousness over Combinations including Davis Relying on arguments regarding anticipation by Gentile and obviousness over Gentile and Massé or Gentile and Harris, Petitioner argues that claims 1–26 are unpatentable over a combination of Gentile and Boncyk, Gentile, Massé, and Boncyk, and Gentile, Harris, and Boncyk. Pet. 80–85. These arguments incorporate by reference the prior arguments, substituting an online identification mechanism and the generation of new identifiers for objects “on the fly” when identifying an object. Pet. 80–83. No teaching is identified that addresses the deficiency noted in the grounds upon which these arguments rely. Therefore, for the reasons described with respect to the showings of anticipation by Gentile and obviousness over Gentile and Massé or Gentile and Harris, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing claims 1–26 would have been obvious over Gentile and Davis, over Gentile, Massé, and Davis, or over Gentile, Harris, and Davis.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the time of the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field of study, and at least three years of experience with online web services, database systems, and/or related software applications.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶ 127). Petitioner adds, “[t]his is an approximation and additional education (e.g., masters/doctorate degree(s)) could make up for less practical experience (and vice versa). Id. Patent Owner does not present a different proposal for level of skill or comment on Petitioner’s proposal. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. This level of skill comports with the teachings of the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,582,595 - SAP SE v. Teradata US Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00861 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 and all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Based on the present record, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed construction supported by the intrinsic evidence. The ordinary meaning of “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” does not require limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage, and Patent Owner does not argue to the contrary. Turning to the language of the other claims, we note that claim 5, which depends from claim 1, specifically includes additional language stating that the data is stored “only in one of two portions of the volatile storage,” but claim 1 does not include such language. The use of this additional limitation in dependent claim 5 suggests that the inventors did not intend it to be included within claim 1’s broader language reciting “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim”). Turning to the ’923 patent specification, the portions of the specification Patent Owner relies on appear to discuss a preferred embodiment of the invention, rather than limiting the invention itself. The portions of columns 14 and 15 upon which Patent Owner relies discuss Figure 3 which, the specification explains, “depicts a volatile storage 300 that uses a persistent temperature-based storage management technique as well as a conventional storage management technique in accordance with one embodiment.” Ex. 1001, 14:48–51 (emphasis added); see id. at 5:5–8 (also describing Figure 3 as being “in accordance with one embodiment” of the invention). Interpreting claim 1 to require maintaining only a single copy of a data portion in either the first portion or second portion, where that language does not exist in claim 1, would be tantamount to reading a limitation from a preferred embodiment into the claims, which would be improper. See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Patent Owner does not identify any portions of the specification suggesting that limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage is a necessary part of the invention, or that the inventors intended to expressly or impliedly define “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” to include this requirement. Consequently, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring that “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” requires “coordinating placement of data into and out of the volatile storage so as to limit the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage.” The parties may further address the meaning of this claim phrase during the trial, if appropriate.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. Other Terms We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and two years of industry experience or research working 2 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. with database and related storage management technologies,” and that “[a]dditional education, such as an M.S. in computer science, could substitute for the industry experience as it typically involves at least two years of additional study focused exclusively on computer science, as well as a thesis or project spanning several terms to implement a substantial project.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). According to Petitioner, the person of ordinary skill would have “understood the advantages of partitioning a volatile memory into multiple different sections (e.g., buffer pools) and applying multiple different storage management (e.g., cache replacement) policies to those different sections, and known how to implement such designs.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 14. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’923 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Lee discloses this claim element. Paragraph 17 of Lee discloses the use of a temperature-based storage management technique and a non-temperature-based storage management technique (the LRU replacement policy), and that both “may be used to manage a cache.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Based on the present record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Lee’s disclosure of using these techniques “to manage a cache” involves “manag[ing] the storage of data in” the cache, because both techniques operate in order to control what data is stored in the cache. We do not find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive because it is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” to require “limit[ing] the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage,” which we do not adopt. See § II.A.2, supra. Consequently, we determine that, on the record before us, Petitioner’s cited evidence sufficiently supports its contentions regarding this limitation.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,851,923 - LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · PGR2020-00055 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable as anticipated by the Leopaard or obvious over the Leopaard alone or with the Equinox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“designer of ordinary skill analysis whereas the overall claimed design cannot be accurately compared to the Leopaard vehicle. As we discuss in more detail below, there are simply too many aspects of the claimed design that are not adequately disclosed by the images of the Leopard. Although LKQ’s experts project what is likely to be in these evidentiary voids, we do not find estimations of design features on par with an actual showing. LKQ’s anticipation and obviousness theories are based too much on speculation and conjecture about what features might be present in the Leopaard’s skid bar (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 22 (“most likely”)), or that various features can be discounted as “likely barely noticeable” or “unlikely to be noticeable.” Id. at 25, 28. With this understanding, we compare the design claim to the Leopaard, noting both the similarities and difference and also the shortcomings in evidence.” slip op. at 43
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design and experience in the field of transportation design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in the field of transportation or automotive design. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1004 ¶ 39). GM originally argued for a slightly different standard for the ordinary designer in its Preliminary Response, but for purposes of its Response, GM has acquiesced in LKQ’s definition. See PO Resp. 8. Mr. Peters contends that “I do not discern any relevant differences between these proposals, nor do I have any substantive disagreement with Mr. Gandy’s proposal. My opinion is the same, regardless of which definition is applied.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 27. Based on the final record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“contentions. As we analyze in detail below, LKQ’s case is not persuasive for several reasons, including its failure to provide sufficient evidence. LKQ has not produced images of the Leopaard that would enable a persuasive comparison with corresponding views of the claimed invention. The evidence produced by LKQ related to the Leopaard simply fails to clearly show several claimed aspects of the design. Because the Petition omits sufficient views of any complete single skid bar (Ex. 2004 ¶ 51), the evidence produced by LKQ related to the Leopaard simply fails to clearly show several claimed aspects of the design. For example, Exhibits 1006– 1009 include front or perspective views that show, at most, only an upper portion of a skid bar. Exhibit 1010 shows slightly more of the skid bar of its vehicle, but also omits a significant portion of the bottom of the skid bar. Ex. 2004 ¶ 51; Ex. 2006, 77:2–21. The exhibits do not show a sufficient bottom view to allow comparison and the exhibits also have obscured side views due to other trim features covering the outsides of the skid bar. For these and other reasons such as the differences between the designs discussed below, LKQ has failed to meet its burden of proof.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petition does propose any other modifications to the Leopaard. LKQ’s obviousness analysis failed to address the differences that contribute to the overall appearance of the ’508 patent’s design. As discussed above, the evidence shows multiple readily apparent differences between the claimed design and the Leopaard. We agree with Mr. Peters that “[t]he differences I discussed above in the context of the ordinary observer are just as significant to the ordinary designer, who would likewise have recognized these readily visible features.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 86. These same differences in the aggregate create an overall ornamental design that is not basically the same between the claimed design of the ’508 patent and the Leopaard. Accordingly, the Leopaard is not a proper Rosen reference. Even before modifications may be considered, LKQ has the burden to show that the Leopaard, as it currently is “in existence,” has design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design. High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1311. Considering the Leopaard before any proposed modifications, it is not a proper Rosen reference. Ex. 2004 ¶ 84. The Leopaard does not give basically the same visual impression as the patented design because the Leopaard does not teach a substantial vertical front face, bottom surface and edge (continuous surface below the recesses), outwardly projecting top and side surfaces, curvature from side-to-side, deep recesses entirely visible from the front, and outer perimeter shape. See id. ¶¶ 49, 52–85. As Mr. Peters testifies, the Leopaard does not have substantially the same overall appearance because “the respective designs include numerous fundamentally different design characteristics,” which “[t]he Petition does not specifically address.” Id. ¶¶ 83, 84. Without accounting for these differences—and particularly, the significance of these differences to the designer of ordinary skill in the art—the Petition lacks sufficient evidence that the Leopaard is “a single reference that creates basically the same visual impression” as the claimed design. Indeed, the differences described above in the context of the ordinary observer are just as significant to the ordinary designer, who is aware of readily apparent differences when assessing the visual impression of designs. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 25, 84–86. Thus, we are not persuaded that a designer of ordinary skill would have viewed the Leopaard to give basically the same visual impression as the ’508 patent.” slip op. at 58
Patent outcomesUS D855,508 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - Autostore System Inc. v. Ocado Innovation LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00798 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“storage locations, but that this grid is defined by a structural framework. Ex. 1001, 14:5–6. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the language of claims 1 and 23 strongly suggests that the structural framework defines the grid of storage locations, and not merely that the structural framework provides open areas within which storage containers could be arranged in a grid-like pattern.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed in Section II.A.2 above, we construe “a structural framework defining a grid of storage locations,” as recited in claims 1 and 23, to require that a “structural framework” define the grid of storage locations, as opposed to these locations being defined merely by the orientation or location of stacked containers. Petitioner identifies no Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1 and 23 are anticipated by Lert.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“would have been obvious over Lert. Pet. 21–53. Petitioner’s obviousness arguments with respect to these claims do not resolve the issues noted above with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 23. In particular, Petitioner provides no persuasive argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lert to have a structural framework that defines the storage locations or to have delivery containers stored within storage containers and delivered to picking workstations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8, 13–20, and 23 would have been obvious over the disclosures of Lert.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,796,080
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.