• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00068 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Capalik and King.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argued that we should not institute both petitions. Paper 8, 1–5. Patent Owner argued that the challenged claims are not long and Petitioner’s concerns about the construction of “association” in limitation 1(b) are “contrived.” Id. at 1. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner could have addressed all of the challenged claims in one petition. Id. Noting that both the ’70 petition and the instant Petition challenge all claims of the ’872 patent, Patent Owner argued that the number of claims challenged does not necessitate multiple petitions. Id. at 2–3. Patent Owner also argued that Petitioner could have waited until closer to the statutory due the claim language “association” in the related district court proceeding. Id. at 4–5. Considering the facts holistically, we determine the totality of the circumstances here supports Petitioner’s position that two petitions are warranted. Petitioner has challenged a large number of claims directed to complex subject matter. And the task of challenging those claims is complicated by the potential for Patent Owner to argue for a narrow construction of “association” in limitation 1(b). Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner would not have needed to file multiple petitions if it had waited longer to file a petition is not persuasive. Paper 8, 4–5. Patent Owner does not explain why a petitioner should be encouraged to delay the filing of its petition. See id. And the parties appear to agree that Patent Owner has not weighed in on whether “association” should be interpreted narrowly or broadly. Prelim. Reply. 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 8. The present circumstances, considered as a whole, warrant two petitions challenging the claims of the ’872 patent.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “III. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner explains the applicable level of skill in the art as follows: As of June 24, 2010, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience. A POSITA would also have had a working knowledge of software security analysis and dynamic malware analysis. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 13. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’872 patent and 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).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We first look to the claim language itself. It recites “transmitting to one or more computer systems,” not transmitting to “devices.” Ex. 1001, 19:53. Although the claim language “one or more computer systems” may encompass “protected network devices,” we do not see a reason that its plain meaning would be limited to network devices, much less protected network devices. Nor do we see a reason that the plain meaning of “one or more computer systems” is limited to protected network devices to the exclusion of a network that includes protected network devices and one or more other components. In support of its suggestion that the claim language “one or more computer systems” excludes a combination of protected network devices and one or more other components, Patent Owner cites the claim language “for preventing future attacks, to the one or more computer systems.” Prelim. Resp. 20–24; Prelim. Sur-Reply 1–2. But Patent Owner does not provide reasoning or evidence persuading us to read the claim language more narrowly than its plain meaning, which encompasses preventing future attacks to a computer system that includes both protected network devices and one or more other components.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,954,872
• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2024-01025 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 100–109 and 111 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation by Russ and obviousness over Russ with Robert or Eskicioglu.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’236 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 100–109 and 111 on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).1” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “1 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “someone having “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately two or more years of experience in multi-media content distribution and management. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Malek Dec. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38).7” slip op. at 7

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

    “on claim construction and disregard everything else.8 The parties direct our attention in particular to the proper construction of an “independent” second root of trust in context of the recited claim limitation: “a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust.” We refer to this disputed claim limitation hereafter as the “independent authentication” limitation.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,236
• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2024-01026 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 5–8 and 16–19 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’304 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 5–8 and 16–19 of the ’304 patent on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

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

    “On the present record, we determine that no explicit construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this case. See, e.g., 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)). The parties are ordered to propose and support a specific plain meaning or other construction of the “independent authentication” limitation in their briefs, with reference to the following claim language: 5[a] receiving, at a second conditional access client of the second conditional access server, an authentication through a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses the second root of trust for the second security domain which is independent of and different than the first root of trust. The parties are ordered to analyze the relevant claim language, and cite to the specification and prosecution history in support of their claim construction where applicable. The parties are further ordered to address the question of whether an “independent” “second authentication process” and “second root of trust” requires a conditional access server that manages a secondary subscriber management system where a “client” of the conditional access server does not subscribe to the primary subscriber management system. See Ex. 1001, 8:3–38 (e.g., “authentication methods used by the secondary CA server in the secondary subscriber management system are independent from those used by the primary CA server”).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “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) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSA. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of institution, which the prior art of record supports. 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” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” American Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). “[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). We conclude that, at this stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence and argument to establish a reasonable likelihood that Russ anticipates the challenged claims of the ’304 patent.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,667,304
• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2024-01023 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 32–34, 38, 39, 66–68, 72, 73, 130, 131, 134, and 135 on all petitioned grounds because Roku showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’236 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 32–34, 38, 39, 66–68, 72, 73, 130, 131, 134, and 135 on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).1” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “1 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that” slip op. at 2

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

    “on claim construction and disregard everything else.8 The parties direct our attention in particular to the proper construction of an “independent” second root of trust in context of the recited claim limitation: “a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust.” We refer to this disputed claim limitation hereafter as the “independent authentication” limitation. Petitioner proposes the following construction: “authentication processes that are performed by independent roots of trust—i.e., roots of trust with trust determinations that are independent of the outcome of the other.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:16–38 (“the secondary CA server follows rules (e.g., CA messages) of the primary CA server to manage a secondary subscriber management system”)); see also id. at 5 (“‘independent’ . . . identifies how the first and second roots of trust” “arrive at their first and second authentication determinations, without relying on the output of the other”). Petitioner also asserts that Patent Owner’s patentability argument hinges on a construction of “independent” such that “‘independent’ as used to modify the first and second roots of trust must be construed as independently controlled,” which Petitioner asserts is inconsistent with the ’236 patent claim language and specification. Id. at 1. Patent Owner, for its part, denies that it is advocating for a construction where the two roots of trust are “independently controlled.” Sur-Reply 3. Patent Owner does not offer a construction of the “independent authentication” limitation, citing an unilluminating description where “the client authentication in the secondary security domain is completely independent from the client authentication in the 8 The parties are reminded of the Board’s sanction authority for non-compliance. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(6); 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a)(1). primary security domain.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:33–35). On the present record, we determine that no explicit construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this case. See, e.g., 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)). The parties are ordered to propose and support a specific construction of the “independent authentication” limitation in their briefs, with reference to the following claim language: 130[c.ii] the conditional access server authenticates clients of the conditional access server through a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust. The parties are ordered to analyze the relevant claim language, and cite to the specification and prosecution history in support of their claim construction where applicable, including the language of counterpart “independent authentication” limitations recited in claims 32 and 66 if there are material differences. The parties are further ordered to address the question of whether an “independent” “second authentication process” and “second root of trust” requires a conditional access server that manages a secondary subscriber management system where a “client” of the conditional access server does not subscribe to the primary subscriber management system. See Ex. 1001, 8:3–38 (stating “authentication methods used by the secondary CA server in the secondary subscriber management system are independent from those used by the primary CA server”).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” American Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir.2009)). “[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir.1991)). We find that, at this stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, Petitioner provides sufficient evidence and argument to establish a reasonable likelihood that Russ anticipates the challenged claims of the ’236 patent.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,236
• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2024 · IPR2024-01024 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 48–50, 57, 82–84, 91, 116–118, 125, and 140–142; the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Russ, but not obviousness over Russ.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” American Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). “[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). We conclude that, at this stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence and argument to establish a reasonable likelihood that Russ anticipates the challenged claims of the ’236 patent.” slip op. at 11

  • Parallel petitionsOther

    “5 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set forth constructions for claim language invoking § 112 ¶ 6.” Id. at 1–2 (citing Consol. Tr. Pr. Guide, 59–61). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s Notice. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and decline to exercise our discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(c). 6 Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner does not show that Dr. Wasilewski “qualifies as a POSITA,” his physics degree, background, and experience, in systems involving multi-media content distribution and management and/or related fields, including as an inventor of over 50 patents in fields that include encryption, MPEG systems, and transfer of digital content, including Russ (Ex. 1005), along with extensive engineering experience in related fields, is more than adequate on this preliminary record to qualify Dr. Wasilewski as an artisan of ordinary skill. Compare Prelim. Resp. 5, with Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19 and Ex. 1004.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be 5 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set forth constructions for claim language invoking § 112 ¶ 6.” Id. at 1–2 (citing Consol. Tr. Pr. Guide, 59–61). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s Notice. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and decline to exercise our discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(c). 6 Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner does not show that Dr. Wasilewski “qualifies as a POSITA,” his physics degree, background, and experience, in systems involving multi-media content distribution and management and/or related fields, including as an inventor of over 50 patents in fields that include encryption, MPEG systems, and transfer of digital content, including Russ (Ex. 1005), along with extensive engineering experience in related fields, is more than adequate on this preliminary record to qualify Dr. Wasilewski as an artisan of ordinary skill. Compare Prelim. Resp. 5, with Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19 and Ex. 1004. 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) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSA. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of institution, which the prior art of record supports. 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).” slip op. at 7

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

    “On the present record, we determine that no explicit construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this case. See, e.g., 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)). The parties are ordered to propose and support a specific plain meaning or other construction of the “independent authentication” limitation in their briefs, with reference to the following claim language: 140[c.ii] the conditional access server authenticates clients of the conditional access server through a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust. The parties are ordered to analyze the relevant claim language, and cite to the specification and prosecution history in support of their claim construction where applicable, including the language of counterpart “independent authentication” limitations recited in claims 48, 82, and 116 if there are material differences. The parties are further ordered to address the question of whether an “independent” “second authentication process” and “second root of trust” requires a conditional access server that manages a secondary subscriber management system where a “client” of the conditional access server does not subscribe to the primary subscriber management system. See Ex. 1001, 8:3–38 (e.g., “authentication methods used by the secondary CA server in the secondary subscriber management system are independent from those used by the primary CA server”).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,236
• K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · IPR2023-01205 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Hain anticipates claims 1, 2, and 4 and the stated combinations render claims obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “While we acknowledge that Shaffer was before the Office, that alone is not sufficient to meet the first prong of the Advanced Bionics test. Factor (b) under Becton, Dickinson, which is also considered under the first prong of Advanced Bionics, examines “the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9 n.10. We note that there is no evidence or argument that Hain or Sørensen were previously considered by the Office or cumulative of art that was in front of the Office. Although one reference, Shaffer, was previously presented to the Office, in each asserted ground, Petitioner relies on either Hain or Hain in combination with Sørensen. Because neither of those references was before the office, Patent Owner has not satisfied the first prong of the Advanced Bionics test.” slip op. at 20

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “All of these arguments center on the claim language’s recitation of “one or more of the wireless earpieces.” Id. at 16. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that “[i]f both hearing aids detect a magnetic field, such as by being located in the disclosed storage box, the hearing aids are automatically switched off.” Id. at 17; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 13 (“[I]f both hearing aids detect a relatively strong magnetic field in their immediate vicinity, then this is an indication that the hearing aids are located in the storage box and can be switched off.”). Patent Owner does not appear to dispute that Hain teaches a high power mode when both earpieces do not detect a magnetic field. See Prelim. Resp. 17; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 21 (“For as long as no magnetic field is detected, the hearing aid is in ‘normal operation.’”). On the current record, we are thus persuaded that Hain discloses a low power mode when both earpieces detect a magnetic field and a high power mode when both earpieces do not detect a magnetic field. The parties’ dispute centers on the mixed situation when one earpiece detects a magnetic field and one does not. Patent Owner directs us to Hain’s disclosure of a “telephone mode” when “there is a magnetic field applied to one hearing aid but not the other, such as by a telephone receiver emitting a magnetic field.” Prelim. Resp. 16. According to Patent Owner, in order “[t]o anticipate the claims, Hain must disclose an earpiece that switches to a high power mode when only it – and not both it and its pair – no longer detects a magnetic field.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner, however, also asserts that “to anticipate the claims, Hain must disclose an earpiece that switches to a low power mode when only it – and not its pair – detects a magnetic field.” Id. at 21. Thus, we understand Patent Owner to be arguing that each earpiece must independently move to a high or low power state based on whether it detects a magnetic field. We, however, are not persuaded that the claim language is so limited. Limitation 1B recites “powering circuitry of the wireless earpieces utilizing a high-power mode in response to detecting a magnetic field is not applied to one or more of the wireless earpieces.” Limitation 1C recites “altering the power sent to the circuitry of the wireless earpiece to a high-power mode in response to detecting a magnetic field is not applied to one or more of the wireless earpieces.” Thus, the disputed portions of these limitations are met if “one or more” of the earpieces detects that a magnetic field is not present and goes into a high power mode. As noted above, on the current record, we are persuaded that Hain discloses that an earpiece goes to a high power state if it does not detect a magnetic field. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 21 (“For as long as no magnetic field is detected, the hearing aid is in ‘normal operation.’”).” slip op. at 24

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

    “F. Obviousness over Hain and Shaffer Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hain and Shaffer, citing the Declaration of Dr. Kiaei for support. Pet. 29–61 (citing Ex. 1002). Patent Owner argues that this ground must fail because Shaffer was previously presented to the Office and it reiterates its arguments addressed above regarding the disclosures of Hain. Prelim. Resp. 21–26. For reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by those arguments. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and based on the evidence in the present record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination of Hain and Shaffer teaches all of the limitations recited in claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14. G. Obviousness over Hain, Shaffer, and Sørensen Petitioner asserts that claims 3, 5–7, and 9–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hain, Shaffer, and Sørensen, citing the Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei for support. Pet. 61–67 (citing Ex. 1002). Patent Owner argues that this ground must fail because Shaffer was previously presented to the Office and it reiterates its arguments addressed above regarding the disclosures of Hain. Prelim. Resp. 27. For reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by those arguments. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and based on the evidence in the present record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination of Hain, Shaffer, and Sørensen teaches all of the limitations recited in claims 3, 5–7, and 9–14.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,397,688
• K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · IPR2023-01204 · APJ Larry J Hume · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13 on all six asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “In light of the argument and evidence before us, we find that Shaffer was previously presented to the Office and as such, the first prong of the Advanced Bionics test is satisfied.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2023). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Therefore, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims 1–13 of the ’014 patent, based on the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, Petitioner asserts the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to a person having “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or equivalent experience, and one to two years of experience in the field of wireless electronic devices and battery systems, particularly wireless earpieces such as wireless headphones and hearing aids.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 25). At this stage, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA [(person of ordinary skill in the art)]” (Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Pet. 17)), but “reserves the right to present issues relating to the level of a POSITA should the Board institute this IPR.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention, as articulated above. On this record, we are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’014 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition also is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 25. In addition, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA . . . but reserves the right to present issues relating to the level of a POSITA should the Board institute this IPR and in other proceedings involving the ’014 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Pet. 17).” slip op. at 18

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

    “10–13, we disagree with Patent Owner’s narrow construction requiring that the smart case includes a rechargeable battery utilized to charge a wireless device. The patent discloses an illustrative embodiment that includes a presumably rechargeable battery, i.e., “[t]he smart case 102 encloses a battery, and various other circuitry (not shown) . . . . For example, the battery of the smart case 102 may be utilized to charge the wireless earpieces 142, 144 any number of times before the smart case 102 and corresponding battery may require charging.” Ex. 1001, 3:28–37. However, as quoted below, we note the ʼ014 patent also discloses alternative embodiments of the smart case that do not require a rechargeable battery to recharge a wireless device: The smart case 402 may have any number of configurations and include various circuitry, connections, and other components. The smart case 402 is one potential embodiment of the smart case 102 of FIGS. 1–3. In one embodiment, the smart case 402 may include a battery 404, a logic engine 406, a memory 408, interfaces 410, 411, a transceiver 412, and a magnet 414. The battery 404 is a power storage device configured to charge the power storage system of the wireless earpieces 401 once or multiple times. In other embodiments, the battery 404 as well as the batteries of the wireless earpieces 401 may represent a fuel cell, thermal electric generator, piezo electric charger, solar charger, ultra-capacitor, or other existing or developing power storage technologies. Ex. 1001, 6:9–22 (emphases added). Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, in connection with claims 4, 6–8, and 10–13, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered claim construction of the phrase “smart case” that requires a rechargeable battery utilized to recharge a wireless device. No further express construction is required for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,117,014
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01281 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4 and 6–23 on all asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “unless the information presented in the petition “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.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’878 patent on all of the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, 8 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0282328 A1, published Dec. 14, 2006 (Ex. 1010, “Gerace”). and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). At this time, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 3. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner “does not believe that any terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute.” Prelim. Resp. 4. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “b) Entitlement of Baig to Earlier Effective Filing Date Petitioner asserts that Baig is entitled to the November 10, 2006 filing date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. At this preliminary stage in which Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application. Although the burden of production may shift between the parties during trial, the burden of persuasion to show that Baig is entitled to an earlier effective filing date always remains with Petitioner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01150 · APJ Larry J Hume · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all seven asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Although Shaffer was cited by the examiner during prosecution, it was not discussed in any meaningful regard on the record, as explained above.” Pet. 11. Petitioner cites Advanced Bionics’ holding that, “[i]f the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well-developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive.” Id. (citing Advanced Bionics, 10). Petitioner specifically asserts the Examiner erred because Shaffer discloses the precise features that the examiner identified as novel (high-power and low-power modes), which, in combination with the art teaching other known features (e.g., a reed switch), demonstrates that the challenged claims are unpatentable. . . . By overlooking the specific teachings of Shaffer in allowing the challenged claims, the examiner committed a material error even if it could be argued that Shaffer was considered. Pet. 12 (internal citations omitted). See Advanced Bionics, 8 n.9 (“An example of a material error may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.”). We find that Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in the prior consideration of Shaffer. Under the second prong of Advanced Bionics, we consider “the extent to which the asserted art was for rejection.” Becton, Dickinson, 17. Here, we agree with Petitioner that, although Shaffer was cited by the Examiner on a form PTO-892, Shaffer was not applied as a prior art reference in any rejection because claims 1–20 in the application leading to the ʼ895 patent were allowed in a first action allowance and then, after filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE), claim 21 was added, and subsequently claims 1–21 were allowed and issued in the ʼ853 patent with no further discussion of Shaffer or any other reference. See, generally Ex. 1008; and see Pet. 10. slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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 [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2023). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Therefore, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims 1 through 21 of the ’853 patent, based on the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, Petitioner asserts the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to a person having “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or equivalent experience, and one to two years of experience in the field of wireless electronic devices and battery systems, 11 The current record does not include evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness (secondary considerations). See generally Pet., Ex. 1002, and Prelim. Resp. aids.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 25). At this stage, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] POSITA” (Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Pet. 17), but “reserves the right to present issues relating to the level of a POSITA should the Board institute this IPR.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention, as articulated above. On this record, we are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’853 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition also is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 25.” slip op. at 18

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

    “13, and 17–21, we disagree with Patent Owner’s narrow construction requiring that the smart case be construed as including a rechargeable battery utilized to charge a wireless device, because such a construction ignores intrinsic evidence of multiple additional configurations, actions, or functionality of the smart case disclosed in the ʼ853 patent. These functions, other than charging a wireless device, include preserving battery life of the wireless earpieces, communication with the wireless earpieces through physical interactions or wireless connections, standards, or protocols, configured to store data. See Ex. 1001, 2:38–57.12 More importantly, we note the disclosure of only an illustrative embodiment in the ʼ853 patent that includes a presumably rechargeable battery, i.e., “[t]he smart case 102 encloses a battery, and various other circuitry (not shown). . . . For example, the battery of the smart case 102 may be utilized to charge the wireless earpieces 142, 144 any number of times before the smart case 102 and corresponding battery may require charging.” Ex. 1001, 3:25–34. However, as quoted below, we note the ʼ853 patent also discloses alternative embodiments of the smart case that do not require a rechargeable battery to recharge a wireless device: The smart case 402 may have any number of configurations and include various circuitry, connections, and other components. The smart case 402 is one potential embodiment of the smart case 102 of FIGS. 1–3. In one embodiment, the smart case 402 may include a battery 404, a logic engine 406, a memory 408, interfaces 410, 411, a transceiver 412, and a magnet 414. The battery 404 is a power storage device configured to charge the power storage system of the wireless earpieces 401 once or multiple times. In other embodiments, the battery 404 as well as the batteries of the wireless earpieces 401 may represent a fuel cell, thermal electric generator, piezo electric charger, solar charger, ultra-capacitor, or other existing or developing power storage technologies.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,843,853
• CSC Serviceworks, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2023-01186 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Low.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “interest. Prelim. Reply 1–7. And, argues that “there is no reason for the Board to address PayRange’s RPI argument at institution because no time-bar or estoppel issue exists.” Id. at 2–3 (“To date, PayRange has not asserted the ‘045 patent against Kiosoft or TechTrex, and thus no time bar ever triggered under § 315(b) based on separate litigation between PayRange and Kiosoft/TechTrex.”). iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (“SharkNinja”) held that it best serves the Office’s interests in cost and efficiency to not resolve an RPI issue when “it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315” in that proceeding. SharkNinja, Paper 11; see also Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 76 at (USPTO Director May 22, 2023) (non-precedential). We do not address whether KioSoft and TechTrex are unnamed real-parties-in-interest because, even if they were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” slip op. at 7

  • Strike new argumentDenied

    “TPG, 40. The block quotation image on page 73 of the Petition contains approximately 105 words. On this record, whether or not Petitioner accounts for these words in its certification is unclear. In any event, Patent Owner does not allege that it has suffered any undue prejudice from the extra 102 words. Nor does Patent Owner indicate that it promptly raised the issue to allow for Petitioner to take reasonable steps to remedy the issue. Under the circumstances in this case, we are not persuaded the Petitioner is abusing the process by including excessive words in the image so as to warrant not considering the Petition. During trial, all future papers must comply with applicable word- count limits and the parties must avoid images of block quotations, so that the words of the quotation are included in word-count limits.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not provide a description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’045 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Neither party provides an explicit construction of any claim terms. Petitioner asserts that “the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner asserts that “no constructions are necessary to deny institution because the petition facially fails to show that the references satisfy the plain language of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 6. Except to the extent as discussed in our patentability analysis below, we do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy,” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,856,045

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.