- Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,483,448 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,145 - PTAB · May 31, 2024 · IPR2024-00255 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–4 and 6–11 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“that, because judgments have been entered in the district court actions, there is finality as that relates to Fintiv issues. In a similar instance, where a district court’s § 101 determination was appealed to the Federal Circuit, the Director determined that the Board had the authority to institute an inter partes review and a Fintiv analysis should be performed. See Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., IPR2022-01366, Paper 15 at 1–8 (PTAB May 2, 2023). The Director has additionally distinguished a Fintiv analysis under similar circumstances to those here, where “the district court’s judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a statutory ground that could not have been raised before the Board, does not raise concerns of inefficient duplication of efforts or potentially inconsistent results between the Board and the district court.” AviaGames, Inc., Paper 14 at 3. Further, the Director determined that, “the challenged claims have not yet been cancelled and remain in force until the opportunity to appeal has been exhausted,” noting that “[b]y the time an appeal will have concluded, Petitioner will be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from bringing a new challenge in an IPR petition.” Id. at 3–4. Fintiv states that “a district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and discern that the § 101 issues addressed in the Federal Circuit appeal would duplicate the anticipation and obviousness issues addressed here. Accordingly, given the limited § 101 issues on appeal, we do not discern there are any concerns about duplication of efforts. Moreover, because of the uncertainty of the timing of any remand from the Federal Circuit to the district court to address any anticipation or obviousness issues, the present circumstances with a pending appeal effectively act as a stay on the assessment of invalidity issues.9” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition 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 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 7 n.2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8, 10, 26). Dr. Sundaresan testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art “had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in the field working with . . . navigation and/or geolocation systems,” and “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 8. For the purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 32. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’104 patent and the prior art. See” slip op. at 7
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the district court’s construction of “grid point” as “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area.” See Ex. 1054, 18–20. This construction is consistent with the claim language and the specification of the ’104 patent and is further supported by the reasoning provided by the district court’s claim construction order. See id. We do not discern a need to construe explicitly any other claim language at this juncture because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,561,104 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00259 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 on the asserted obviousness ground over Bhattacharya and Yost.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“that because judgements have been entered in the district court actions, this suggests finality. In a similar instance in Volvo, where a district court’s § 101 determination was appealed to the Federal Circuit, the Director determined that the Board had the authority to institute an inter partes review and a Fintiv analysis should be performed. See Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., IPR2022-01366, Paper 15 at 1–8 (PTAB May 2, 2023). The Director has additionally distinguished the Fintiv analysis in AviaGames under similar circumstances to those here, where “the district court’s judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a statutory ground that could not have been raised before the Board, does not raise concerns of inefficient duplication of efforts or potentially inconsistent results between the Board and the district court.” AviaGames, IPR2022- 00530, Paper 14 at 3 (PTAB Mar. 2, 2023) (Decision on Director Review). Further, the Director determined that “the challenged claims have not yet been cancelled and remain in force until the opportunity to appeal has been exhausted,” noting that “[b]y the time an appeal will have concluded, Petitioner will be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from bringing a new challenge in an IPR petition.” Id. at 3–4. Fintiv states that “a district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv at 6. In view of the circumstances, we do not discern that the § 101 issues addressed in the Federal Circuit appeal duplicate the obviousness issues addressed here. The timing of the progress of the appeal and any potential remand to the district court is uncertain. Accordingly, given the limited § 101 issues on appeal, we do not discern there are any concerns about duplication of efforts. Moreover, because of the uncertainty of the timing of any remand from the Federal Circuit to the district court to address any obviousness issues, the present circumstances with a pending appeal effectively act as a stay on the assessment of invalidity issues.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“viii. Conclusion Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is rendered obvious by Bhattacharya and Yost.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“IV. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in the field working with working with navigation and/or geolocation systems. Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 8). Petitioner also contends that additional education could compensate for less work experience and vice versa. Id. at 7. For the purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 26. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner, except for the inclusion of “at least,” as it is consistent with the ’753 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedOther
“patent and district court issued claim constructions for some terms that were disputed. Ex. 1020; Ex. 1025. Petitioner uses the district court’s construction or the agreed-upon construction for the terms “calibration data,” “calibration points,” “grid point,” “network measurement report,” and the order of the “providing,” “generating,” “evaluating,” and “selecting” steps of claim 1. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1020; Ex. 1025). Petitioner proposes that all terms should be interpreted consistent with the Phillips standard. Id. at 7. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s statement on claim construction for the purposes of this Preliminary Response” and “reserves the right to present arguments on the constructions should the Petition be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 26. For the purposes of this Decision, we will use the district court’s claim constructions and those agreed-upon by the parties in the litigations, where the adoption of those constructions have been agreed to by the parties at this juncture in this proceeding. We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms at this juncture. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,406,753 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00032 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 9, 11, 12, 14–16, 18–22, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 35 on all asserted grounds.
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. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. 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 claims 1–5, 9, 11, 12, 14–16, 18–22, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 35 of the ’494 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv at 6. In view of the circumstances, we do not discern that the § 101 issues addressed in the Federal Circuit appeal would duplicate the anticipation and obviousness issues addressed here. Accordingly, given the limited § 101 issues on appeal, we do not discern there are any concerns about duplication of efforts. Moreover, because of the uncertainty of the timing of any remand to the district court to address any anticipation or obviousness issues, the present circumstances with a pending appeal effectively act as a stay on the assessment of invalidity issues.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“an IDS in the ’494 patent, we agree with Patent Owner that the record shows that Bhattacharya and Spain10 were listed on an IDS during prosecution of the parent ’358 patent, which the ’494 patent Examiner was required to consider. Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing MPEP 609.02). As such, we determine that Bhattacharya and Spain were presented previously to the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 9; Advanced Bionics at 7–8. We also agree with Patent Owner that the addition of Meunier does not substantially impact our § 325(d) analysis because of the Petition’s limited reliance on this reference. For these reasons, we determine that the first prong of Advanced Bionics is met and turn to the second prong.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in the field working with working with navigation and/or geolocation systems. 1003 ¶ 8; Pet. 6, n.2. According to Petitioner, “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 8. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim Resp. 43. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’494 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,786,494 - PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00031 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 15–20, 24, 26, and 27 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id.” slip op. at 6
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Fintiv states that “a district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv at 6. In view of the circumstances, we do not discern that the § 101 issues addressed in the Federal Circuit appeal would duplicate the anticipation and obviousness issues addressed here. Accordingly, given the limited § 101 issues on appeal, we do not discern there are any concerns about duplication of efforts. Moreover, because of the uncertainty of the timing of any remand from the Federal Circuit to the district court to address any anticipation or obviousness issues, the present circumstances with a pending appeal effectively act as a stay on the assessment of invalidity issues.7” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,400,358 - PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00158 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Pham and Wu, and granted joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“4. Conclusion for Claim 1 Having reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Pham and Wu. E. Conclusion on the Merits of the Petition We have found that the Petition warrants institution based on Petitioner’s showings for claim 1. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments about the other grounds, but they largely rely on the earlier unpersuasive arguments for claim 1. On whole, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the Petition warrants institution.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with IPR2023- 00703 is granted, and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Fortinet, Inc. are joined as a party in IPR2023-00703;” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“based on the related district court matters identified above. Opp. Mot. Join 4–12. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the copending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Reply Mot. Join 4–5), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.”) (Director Review). Patent Owner focuses its analysis on factor 5 and proposed factor 8. Id. at 13–15. As to factor 5, which looks for an explanation of the time between petition filing, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently explained the time between Cisco’s petition and its own when it noted that it merely filed its petition and request for joinder when the statute permitted it. Reply Mot. Join 6 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)). In particular, the statute requires the earlier petition to be instituted before joining a party. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (requiring joinder to be to instituted proceedings). Thus, the time elapsed between filings is motivated by the statutory and regulatory procedures. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (requiring the joinder motion to be filed “no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested”). As to proposed factor 8, we agree with Petitioner that the present situation does not apply. Reply Mot. Join. 6–7; see also Shenzhen, IPR2018-00761, Paper 15, 18–19 (Saindon, concurring) (“There are legitimate reasons why a petition may be filed after [a decision on institution)].”). Proposed factor 8 analyzes situations where a second petitioner strategically waits to file its petition to see what happens to an earlier filed petition. Shenzhen, IPR2018-00898, Paper 9 at 7. If both of the petitioners were sued at or around the same time, but one waits until the other goes first, it can lead to an inference that the delay in filing a different petition was to gain an unfair advantage. Id. at 14 (looking with disfavor on a wait-and-see strategy to use the first petition as a “test case”). That is not the case here, where the second petition is a copycat petition. The Petition here cannot be said to have been filed second in order to glean knowledge from the first petition because it is the same petition. Thus, we do not see this Petition as being a strategic attempt to use Cisco’s petition as a “test case,” and do not consider factor 8 to weigh toward denial. Finally, reviewing factor 6, we do not find that granting Petitioner’s motion to join would cause an undue burden on the Board. Petitioner is serving as an “understudy” and thus, from our perspective, Petitioner’s presence does not change the existing Cisco IPR. Patent Owner argues that if Cisco were to settle then Petitioner would continue the proceeding. Opp. Mot. Join. 15. We do not see this as an undue burden in this situation. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder serves to lessen our burden (as well as Patent Owner’s) compared to the scenario of it filing its own unique petition. We do not see the present case as similar to the Apple case, in which a copycat joinder petition was denied. See Apple, IPR2020-00854, Paper 9. That case, in our view, turned on the fact that the petitioner had already filed a petition that was denied on the merits. See id. at 4 (“In effect, it would be as if [the petitioner] had brought the second challenge to the patent in the first instance,” and labeling this a “serial attack.”). The situation here is not analogous to the Apple case because this is Petitioner’s only petition against the ’436 patent. The Petition is not a “serial attack” on the ’436 patent, it is merely Petitioner’s statutorily required vehicle to join as a party to an existing petition. Accordingly, we do not find factor 6 to weigh towards denial. Reviewing the General Plastic factors as a whole, including proposed factor 8, we find no factors to weigh toward denial and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,566,612 - PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00099 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds and granted joinder to IPR2023-00673.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). 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 “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’436 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“compressed, or use security protocols, then the packets transit the packet engine. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 49, 51, 53). Patent Owner argues that only the SA parameter association task in Pham may be offloaded. Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38, 51). Patent Owner’s argument here implies that the filtering function remains at the ingress processor and that some packets will be filtered and never reach the packet engine. See id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 38); Ex. 1004 ¶ 38 (“In the preferred embodiments of the present invention, the ingress processors 30, 34 are tasked with filtering and routing functions . . . .”). The statement Patent Owner relies on is not in the same section as the one Petitioner relies on. In other words, it does not appear on this record that we can limit the disclosure of paragraph 51 based on the statements in paragraph 38. On this record, we are not persuaded that only the SA parameter association task can be offloaded. As Pham notes, tasks can be moved between processors to perform load balancing. Ex. 1004 ¶ 54. We see no disclosure that prevents certain tasks from being load balanced or otherwise tasked to the security processor.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“find them persuasive on this record. Id. at 32–33. At a high level, Patent Owner’s arguments are that Petitioner’s modification to Pham would “increase[] complexity and resources.” Id. at 33. On this record, this argument is unpersuasive because even if the addition of Wu’s intrusion detection system was somehow more complex, the reason to combine it is to gain certain beneficial features. See, e.g., Pet. 30–31. Patent Owner’s arguments do not show that the alleged increase in complexity would somehow dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from including these beneficial features. See, e.g., Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (alteration in original); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”).” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“based on the related district court matters identified above. Opp. Mot. Join 4–12. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the copending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Reply Mot. Join 4–5), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,685,436 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01563 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Yong and Xavier because the Board found the proposed server-function combination and replication of the virtual terminal sales application obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field or equivalent coursework or experience, and one to two years of experience with mobile device applications and retail POS systems,” also noting that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33). “For purposes of the IPR proceedings related to the ’435 Patent only, [Patent Owner] does not dispute this definition.” PO Resp. 8. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proffered level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’435 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner counters that we should afford full weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony. PO Sur-reply 2. Patent Owner contends that Dr. Williams meets Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Williams surpasses the education requirement” and meets the experience requirements. Id. Addressing Petitioner’s concerns about retail technology experience, Patent Owner asserts that “Dr. Williams testified that his MBA curriculum contained coursework that included study of POS systems, particularly though case studies.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 3; Ex. 1022 16:3–7). “This is precisely the ‘more education in the [person of ordinary skill in the art] definition that can ‘supplement practical experience,’” Patent Owner argues. Id. (citing Pet. 12). Patent Owner persuades us that Petitioner’s concerns regarding Dr. Williams’s retail technology and knowledge and experience are not a basis for affording less weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with the parties’ claim construction. Grammatically, within each of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, each recitation of “the server” refers to the same “server.” Thus, according to these claims’ plain meaning, each and every recitation of “the server” refers to the same server. See Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 64 F.4th 1311, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining claim language reciting element with definite article refers to same element previously recited) (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Harari v. Lee, 655 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Likewise, according to the plain meaning of claims 10, 12, and 14, each and every recitation of “the server” in these claims refers to the same server. We construe every recitation of “the server” in claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 as referring to the same server. And we construe every recitation of “the server” in claims 10, 12, and 14 as referring to the same server.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position that it would have been “obvious to combine functions of any [of] its servers 200, 400, 500 into the same server.” E.g. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; PO Resp. 2–6, 22–25, 28–40; Pet. Reply 1–2, 7–12; PO Sur-reply 1–2, 5–15. It is undisputed that “[i]t was well-understood in the art at the time of the Critical Date that functionality of different servers can be combined in the same server.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 413); see generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. The Petition persuades us that it would have been obvious to implement this known approach in Yong’s system, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments about intentionally keeping servers separate. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; PO Resp. 2–6, 22–25, 28–40; Pet. Reply 1–2, 7–12; PO Sur-reply 1–2, 5–15. The Petition and its evidence demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying Yong’s disclosure by combining the functionalities of the servers would have produced one logical variation on Yong’s system. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–132, 412–414, 436, 442, 452, 460. As the Petition and Dr. Shamos note, Yong’s servers cooperatively perform functions of Yong’s system by communicating with one another and other system components, such that consolidating the functionality into the same server would result in that server performing all of the same functions that Yong’s servers do separately. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–132, 412–414, 436, 442, 452, 460; See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (combination of known devices according to established functions normally obvious); id. at 417 (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”). The Petition and its evidence also persuade us that such a modification would have been well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. E.g., Pet. 10, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–34, 38–42, 412, 414. As Dr. Shamos notes, Yong itself indicates that the system could use different components on its server side, disclosing that “[a] commercial transaction system (e.g., a commerce system) according to the present invention is configured to include a mobile communication terminal 100, a store POS system 200, and a mobile telecommunication system 300. More preferably, a commercial transaction server 400 and a payment server 500 may be further included.” Ex. 1010, 12:9–13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 412. On the whole, the Petition persuades us that combining the functions of Yong’s servers would have involved no more than an obvious application of a known approach with predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01528 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–19 are unpatentable: the Board found claims 15–16 anticipated or obvious and claims 17–19 obvious; it did not reach the Yong-Xavier-Cason ground for claim 17.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find that the ’435 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 by those sources 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). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“technologies, [and he admits] that his only retail technology experience is limited to MBA case studies from the early 1990s.” Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1022, 15:20–22, 16:3–7, 17:22–23; Ex. 2010). Based on this, Petitioner advances that we “should afford little weight to Dr. Williams’ testimony.” Id. Patent Owner counters that we should afford full weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony. PO Sur-reply 2. Patent Owner contends that Dr. Williams meets Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Williams surpasses the education requirement” and meets the experience requirements. Id. at 3. Addressing Petitioner’s concerns about retail technology experience, Patent Owner asserts that “Dr. Williams testified that his MBA curriculum contained coursework that included study of POS systems, particularly though case studies.” Id. (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 3; Ex. 1022 16:3–7). “This is precisely the ‘more education’ in the [person of ordinary skill in the art] definition that can ‘supplement practical experience,’” Patent Owner argues. Id. (citing Pet. 12). Patent Owner persuades us that Petitioner’s concerns regarding Dr. Williams’s retail technology and knowledge and experience are not a basis for affording less weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the ’435 patent’s Specification supports Petitioner’s position. As Petitioner argues, the Specification’s disclosure that “[u]ser identification information may include a username, a password, [or] both a username and password” conveys that “a username, a password, [or] both a username and password” is a short, non-exhaustive list of user identification information according to the ’435 patent. Ex. 1001, 6:2–4 (emphasis added). This comports with the plain meaning of “user identification information,” which seemingly would refer to information that identifies a user. Consistent with this, the claim language does not convey any meaning of “user identification information” other than its plain meaning. See, e.g., id. at 24:7–9. Accordingly, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s suggestion that limitation 16a’s “user identification information” requires a username, a password, or both. PO Resp. 72; PO Sur-reply 30. Instead, we conclude that “user identification information” encompasses information that identifies a user.” slip op. at 16
- BurdenPetitioner expert creditedUnpatentable
“Weighing all of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has shown that Fletchall discloses performing all of limitations 15h–15j’s actions by the same server, specifically payment server 130. For example, Petitioner persuades us that Fletchall discloses payment server 130 performing the actions of limitations 15h and 15i: “retrieving . . . payment information to complete the transaction” and “completing . . . the transaction based on the payment information.” Ex. 1001, 23:43–24:2; Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:35–49, 11:3–12, 12:42–45, 13:9–14, 13:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 199–204, 206–208, 210; Ex. 1001, 10:59–11:3, Fig. 2B). Petitioner’s evidence also shows that Fletchall discloses limitation 15j’s “transmitting . . . a confirmation receipt to the mobile phone in response to completion of payment for the transaction” by payment server 130 on its own. Ex. 1001, 24:3–5; Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1008, 9:26–32, 11:57–61; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 213–214). For example, Petitioner cites Fletchall’s disclosure of at least one embodiment in which “the electronic receipt is generated by the payment server (130) and provided to the transaction module (106b) of the mobile POS application (106).” Ex. 1008, 9:26–29; Pet. 27. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates that Fletchall discloses performing all of limitations 15h–15j by payment server 130. This showing is not diminished by Patent Owner’s observation that the Petition mentions Fletchall’s product database 121 when discussing limitation 15j. PO Sur-reply 27 n.12 (citing Pet. 26–27). In the passages Petitioner cites, Fletchall contains multiple, alternative disclosures about creating and sending a receipt. Ex. 1008, 9:26–32, 11:57–61; Pet. 27. For example, Fletchall contains (1) a disclosure that a receipt can be generated and transmitted by payment server 130 on its own (Ex. 1008, 9:26–29) and (2) an alternate disclosure that “[t]he electronic receipt may be generated by the product database (121) in cooperation with the payment server (130) and provided to the transaction module 106(b) of the mobile POS application (106)” (id. at 9:29–32). As Dr. Shamos notes, Fletchall also discloses that “[t]he electronic receipt may be generated by the payment server.” Ex. 1008, 11:19–20; Ex. 1002 ¶ 213. Immediately following this disclosure, Fletchall describes handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 and product database 121 working in cooperation as an alternative to handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 on its own: The electronic receipt may be generated by the payment server, by the product database in cooperation with the payment server and/or by a mobile application installed on the mobile device directly. Once generated, the electronic receipt may be sent to the mobile device to be stored in a memory or in a storage device of the mobile device. Ex. 1008, 11:19–25 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s reliance on Fletchall’s disclosure of handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 on its own supports Petitioner’s case, regardless of Fletchall’s alternate disclosure of handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 in cooperation with product database 121.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,803,435
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.