• 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 GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00901 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable under § 103 over the Hensen-based combinations, including combinations with the LG Manual or Lee.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ proposals are very similar, and we find Petitioner’s proposal to be consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art that is reflected by the ’385 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, Petitioner filed the Declaration of Brian W. Anthony, Ph.D. and the Reply Declaration of Brian W. Anthony, Ph.D. in support of its Petition.8 Ex. 1002 (“Anthony Decl.”); Ex. 1033 (“Anthony Reply Decl.”).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “This Manual has been designated guidance document USPTO- P-1. The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. However, given that, to our knowledge, there is no pertinent case law on this issue, we find the PTO guidance to be a persuasive interpretation of the statute. See Tr. 34:2–12, 48:1–4. Thus, we follow the PTO guidance, which explicitly requires that the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) are only applicable when the subject matter” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Other than disputing the prior art status of the Hensen Video, which as discussed above is unfounded, Patent Owner does not specifically challenge the motivation for combining the Hensen Patent and the Hensen Video. See generally PO Resp. We determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for the proffered combination, and has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the Hensen Patent and the Hensen Video as argued.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,635,385 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,635,385
• Netflix, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00628 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 8–11 as anticipated by Mehta, and claims 1–14 as obvious over Mehta and Schläpfer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that no claim terms require specific construction to resolve the unpatentability issues presented in the Petition. Pet. 23; PO Resp. 10–11. We agree and do not construe any terms.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Analysis We agree with Petitioner. Mehta discloses storing “functionally equivalent programs having the same name that are capable of running on multiple kinds of devices that even may be written using different languages.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 98. Mr. Wechselberger testifies that this disclosure shows that Mehta’s “MAS receives, stores and supports functionally equivalent programs capable of running on multiple devices because each program corresponds to a different device having different device capabilities (e.g., written using different languages).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 66. This testimony is consistent with that of Dr. Goodrich, who testifies that “each application has a single version made for a particular device type.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 66. Dr. Goodrich later testifies that paragraph 98 of Mehta describes that there could be two functionally equivalent programs with the same name that are compatible with a single user’s computer. Id. at ¶ 88; see PO Resp. 31–32 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 87–88). We do not credit this later testimony, because it is inconsistent with Dr. Goodrich’s earlier testimony that “each application,” or program of Mehta, is “made for a particular device type.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 66. We agree with Mr. Wechselberger and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood that Mehta’s disclosure of functionally equivalent programs having the same name that are capable of running on multiple kinds of devices means that each program corresponds to a different device having different capabilities. Further, Mehta discloses that “the MAS only lists those applications that are supported by the subscriber’s device. This allows the subscriber to avoid the problem of having to explicitly select a compatible application.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 117; see Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75, 77). Mr. Wechselberger testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood this disclosure to mean that the MAS provides the subscriber with only a single subscriber-appropriate version that will work for the subscriber. Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Although Patent Owner contends that Mehta is silent on whether only a single description would be provided if there were multiple implementations (PO Sur-Reply 10–11), we agree with Mr. Wechselberger and find that when multiple implementations have the same name, each implementation corresponds to a different device, and therefore, the MAS would only present to the subscriber the one implementation that works with the subscriber’s device. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 75, 77.” slip op. at 28

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “piece of content, while the versions of Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs are different implementations.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 39. Dr. Goodrich, in his deposition, when asked if “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’790 patent would also understand that Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Mac are also functionally equivalent, correct?” answered “Yes . . . . But they would be even stronger than simply functionally equivalent. They would be different implementations of the same product.” Ex. 1029, 43:14–24. However, later in his deposition, Dr. Goodrich testifies that Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Mac are separate applications, not different implementations of the same application. Ex. 1029, 48:1–20. We disagree with this later testimony. Neither Dr. Goodrich nor Patent Owner persuasively explains why Dr. Goodrich changed his unambiguous position from both his declaration and his earlier deposition testimony. For example, Dr. Goodrich testifies in his deposition that “for the Lion King example, a .MP3 and a .MOV are different implementations of the same product. They’re also functionally equivalent, but functionally equivalent is broader.” Ex. 1029, 45:7–11. Dr. Goodrich continues, “when Mehta is disclosing functionally equivalent, it is not referring to it as different implementations of the same product. Instead, it’s [describing] how to disambiguate [applications] not clustered in terms of implementations . . . based on other metadata.” Id. at 45:14–21. This explanation is unpersuasive because it is inconsistent with Dr. Goodrich’s declaration testimony, in which Dr. Goodrich explicitly testifies that the different versions of Lion King, as well as the different versions of Microsoft Word, are different implementations of the same product. Ex. 2020 ¶ 39. Specifically, in his declaration, Dr. Goodrich testifies that the “various versions of Lion King (such as an .mp3 file or an .mov file) are the implementations of the Lion King. For another example, . . . the versions of Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs are different implementations.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 39. Dr. Goodrich testifies again that “Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs” are “multiple implementations of an individual item of digital content.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 70. Further, the reason given in the explanation in his deposition, that Mehta needs to disambiguate applications that are not clustered in terms of implementations based on other metadata, would also apply to the different versions of Lion King, yet Dr. Goodrich consistently testifies that these different versions are different implementations, both in his declaration and in his deposition. Id.; Ex. 1029, 45:7–10. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that the inconsistent testimony of Dr. Goodrich appears to be an attempt to cure Patent Owner’s and Dr. Goodrich’s incomplete analysis of Mehta’s disclosure. See Reply 7–8. In particular, the Petition quotes Mehta’s disclosure that the MAS stores “functionally equivalent programs having the same name that are capable of running on multiple kinds of devices that even may be written using different languages.” Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 98). Dr. Goodrich addresses this disclosure by explaining that two applications, such as Microsoft Word and Apple Pages, are functionally equivalent but are two different applications, not multiple implementations of a single application. Ex. 2020 ¶ 70. In this analysis, Dr. Goodrich does not address the full disclosure of Mehta, which describes that the “functionally equivalent programs hav[e] the same name” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 98), such as Dr. Goodrich’s example of Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs. See id. Thus, although Dr. Goodrich is correct in testifying that some functionally equivalent programs, such as Microsoft Word and Apple Pages, are not different implementations of an item of digital content, he is also correct in testifying that “Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs” are “multiple implementations of an individual item of digital content.” Id. Yet Dr. Goodrich does not identify any difference between the multiple implementations of Microsoft Word and the functionally equivalent programs having the same name as described by Mehta.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,233,790 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,233,790
• Netflix, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00630 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, and 22 are anticipated by Cassin; all claims are also obvious over Cassin and Huston and over Huston.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require specific construction to resolve the unpatentability issues presented” in the Petition. Pet. 15–16. Similarly, Patent Owner contends that “no express construction of any term is required.” PO Resp. 18. For purposes of this decision, we do not construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “is included in the indication. See PO Resp. 40. However, the ’559 patent does not describe what is included in the claimed “listing.” Rather, throughout the disclosure of the ’559 patent, the phrase “the listing of one or more pieces of content stored in memory” or a variation thereof is repeated without any further elaboration. Ex. 1001, 3:13–15, 3:26–36, 12:22–26, 12:50–52, 13:29–30. For example, the Specification does not disclose that the listing of one piece of content includes the title of the piece of content, nor an identification number of the piece of content, nor any other information about the piece of content. The disclosed listing is no more than an item of information that indicates that a specific piece of content is stored in the memory of the terminal. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim term “a listing of one . . . piece[] of content stored in the memory,” read in light of the Specification of the ’559 patent, encompasses an item of information that indicates that a specific piece of content is stored in the memory of the terminal. We agree with Petitioner and find that Cassin’s indication that the client currently has the media content item describes an item of information that indicates that a piece of content is stored in the memory of the terminal. Therefore, Cassin’s indication that the client currently has the media item describes “a listing of one . . . piece[] of content stored in the memory” as claimed.” slip op. at 33

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

    “Analysis We agree with Petitioner and find that Cassin’s offer to download an item describes “a response . . . that instructs the terminal to perform one or more actions” as claimed. Reply 11 (citing Pet. 25–26), 13–14. Cassin discloses that the server uses the user information received from the client to query a database in the server for a list of content to which the user is entitled. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 162, 164. Cassin discloses that the server offers an item from the list to the client for downloading. Id. ¶ 163 (The server offers every item on the list), ¶ 164 (The server attempts to send an item on the list). Cassin discloses that the client checks to see if it already has the item. Id. ¶¶ 163, 164. If the client has the item, the client refuses the download offer. Id. If the client does not have the item, the client accepts the download of the item and stores the item in its content repository. Id. Thus, the client responds to the offer to download an item from the server by (a) checking to see if it has the offered item, and (b) either refusing the download if the client has the item or accepting the download if the client does not have the item. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner and find that “when the server offers a media item for the client to download, the server is ‘instructing the terminal to perform one or more actions to thereby control the flow of content.’” Reply 11 (citing Pet. 25–26). We agree with Petitioner that in response to the server’s offer, “the client will either ‘refuse the download’ (if it has the content) or ‘accepts the download of the media content item from the server and stores the media content in the local content repository’ (if the client does not have the content).” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 163). We agree with Petitioner and find that by checking to see if it has the item, and “by refusing or accepting the download offer, the client is doing ‘something to control the flow of content’ in response to the server’s instruction.” Id. (quoting PO Resp. 23). We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions to the contrary. In particular, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the server’s offer “has not instructed the client to do anything—the client takes action based on other factors (whether or not it already has the media content item).” PO Sur-Reply 3; see PO Resp. 31–32; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 91–93. We find that the client performs the actions of checking to see if it already has the item and, depending on whether it has the item, either accepting or refusing the offer, in response to receiving the offer from the server. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 163, 164; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–75. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the server’s offer instructs the client to (a) determine whether the client has the item and (b) depending on whether the client has the item, either accept or refuse the offer, which describes “instructing the terminal to perform one or more actions to thereby control the flow of content” as claimed. We further find that, because the offered item is from the server’s list which was determined using information from the user and information from the server’s database, the offer to download the item describes “a response to the content status . . . based upon the terminal status information and the server status information” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,440,559 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,440,559
• Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00186 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Scoda did not disclose the claimed interception limitation and Hallak did not disclose execution of the removed script after removal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the invention of the ’091 patent would have had master’s degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or would have had a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in internet communications. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, this proposal appears to be consistent with the ’091 patent and the prior art of record and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that the parties’ agreed upon construction is supported by the record before us and apply it in our patentability analysis below, requiring the embedded script to be removed before that script is executed. We determine that no other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “during trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Scoda discloses intercepting a web page sent from a We agree with Patent Owner that portions of Scoda cited in the Petition do not disclose a web page, let alone one sent from a server and addressed to a client browser. See PO Resp. 17; Tr. 73:10–23. Scoda discloses that “[t]he core module 21 is executed by the web content proxy server 12 to determine where to provide the response with the executed JavaScript functionality in the exemplary environment 10, such as to a web browser on one of the client devices 14(1)–14(n).” Ex. 1016 ¶ 55. But this functionality does not refer to a web page from a server. Instead, this discussion is about a HTTP request that comes from a client device and may include one or more hidden JavaScript identifiers. See id. ¶¶ 50–55. The discussion about providing a response to a web browser on a client device refers to a response to the client device’s HTTP request, in the form of an error message, that is sent from the proxy server to client device. Id. ¶ 58. As Patent Owner points out, this is one of the two scenarios presented in Scoda, the other one being that HTTP request is sent to the server. Id.; PO Resp. 36; see also Ex. 2009 ¶ 70. We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth that these communications between the client and proxy server or the proxy server and the content server do not disclose the “intercepting” limitation.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied

    “deficient, Petitioner attempts to change the focus of its argument. Pet. Reply 2–3. Petitioner instead relies on Figure 8 and related discussion as “Scoda’s disclosure of proxy server 12 processing a web page that was sent from a web server.” Id. Scoda, and Petitioner’s argument based on this disclosure is, therefore, an untimely new argument presented in the Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,516,091 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,516,091
• Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00187 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 were not proven unpatentable: Athas does not show the same packets are received, modified, and forwarded; neither obviousness combination teaches execution in response to the client’s execution of the second script.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’457 patent would have had “a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications.” Pet. 14 (citing Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31). For our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s formulation. Institution Dec. 11. Patent Owner has not provided a description of the ordinarily skilled artisan. However, Dr. Almeroth testifies that although he “do[es] not necessarily agree with every aspect of Dr. Williams’s explanation,” he bases his opinions on Dr. Williams’s description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Almeroth Decl. ¶ 36. For this Final Written Decision, therefore, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner 6 Neither party has presented evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. and used previously in our Institution Decision. We find that this formulation is consistent with the ’457 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams. Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12.” slip op. at 23

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “as “the number of packets” intercepted in limitation 1a (see PO Resp. 6–7). Petitioner responds that resolving this argument is not necessary. Pet. Reply 1. We find that whether claim 1 requires the packets intercepted by the network appliance in limitation 1a to be the same packets involved in limitations 1b–1d, Petitioner has not persuasively shown that any same number of packets in Athas that are received at proxy platform 101 are then modified and forwarded as required by limitations 1b–1d, for the reasons discussed below. We agree with Patent Owner that the number of packets in limitations 1b-1d are the same, and, therefore, we find that Petitioner’s citations to Athas do not disclose the sequence of operations recited in claim limitations 1b–1d. Petitioner, therefore, does not demonstrate that Athas anticipates the claim. Specifically, we are not persuaded either by Petitioner’s assertions or Dr. Williams’s testimony that in Athas, the same “number of packets” that are received and modified by Athas’s proxy platform 101 are then forwarded to Athas’s proxy client 107, as required by limitations 1b–1d. PO Resp. 6– 7; 15–20; Almeroth Decl. ¶¶ 76–77. Petitioner does not persuasively address this issue the Petition or in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 2–11, asserting, in a footnote, only that “Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding same versus different packets,” and that “Dr. Williams’s testimony does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.”). Id. at 11 n.4 (citing Ex. 2011, 115:22–117:20, 118:5–12). The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12. There is, therefore, no persuasive evidence of record demonstrating that Athas discloses that the same “number of packets” received at proxy platform 101 are, in a modified form, forwarded to proxy client 107. For example, there is no support in the record for a finding that once the content of packets sent from service platform 109 to proxy platform 101 in Athas is extracted and manipulated to replace non-MWL scripts with MWL scripts and the DOM is generated, modified versions of the same received packets are forwarded to provide the web page to proxy client 107, as opposed to completely new packets. We find no sufficient support for this contention in Dr. Williams’s testimony:” slip op. at 23

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “1b-1d are the same, and, therefore, we find that Petitioner’s citations to Athas do not disclose the sequence of operations recited in claim limitations 1b–1d. Petitioner, therefore, does not demonstrate that Athas anticipates the claim. Specifically, we are not persuaded either by Petitioner’s assertions or Dr. Williams’s testimony that in Athas, the same “number of packets” that are received and modified by Athas’s proxy platform 101 are then forwarded to Athas’s proxy client 107, as required by limitations 1b–1d. PO Resp. 6– 7; 15–20; Almeroth Decl. ¶¶ 76–77. Petitioner does not persuasively address this issue the Petition or in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 2–11, asserting, in a footnote, only that “Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding same versus different packets,” and that “Dr. Williams’s testimony does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.”). Id. at 11 n.4 (citing Ex. 2011, 115:22–117:20, 118:5–12). The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12. There is, therefore, no persuasive evidence of record demonstrating that Athas discloses that the same “number of packets” received at proxy platform 101 are, in a modified form, forwarded to proxy client 107. For example, there is no support in the record for a finding that once the content of packets sent from service platform 109 to proxy platform 101 in Athas is extracted and manipulated to replace non-MWL scripts with MWL scripts and the DOM is generated, modified versions of the same received packets are forwarded to provide the web page to proxy client 107, as opposed to completely new packets. We find no sufficient support for this contention in Dr. Williams’s testimony:” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,924,457 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,924,457
• Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00185 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not proven unpatentable; the Board found the asserted WebShield and Hallak grounds failed on script-removal and execution sequencing, and the Kothari combination lacked motivation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner proposes two claim constructions. PO Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner proposes that we construe the term “embedded script,” as defined in the ’498 patent, as “a script that is included or incorporated by reference into a markup language description of a web page and executable by a browser rendering that web page.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:23–26). According to Patent Owner, a “script” is “a sequence of machine-readable instructions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:21–23). Patent Owner proposes that we construe “executing . . . the removed embedded script” as requiring the removal of the script embedded in the web page to take place before the script is executed. Id. This limitation is recited in claim 1 and in each of the other independent claims. Ex. 1001, 11:43–46 (claim 1), 12:17–20 (claim 10); 12:58–63 (claim 19). Petitioner responds that “[t]hese claim terms have already been construed by the district court and those constructions are not disputed in this proceeding.” Pet. Reply 2. We find that these undisputed constructions are supported by the record before us. We, therefore, adopt them for this Decision. We do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other terms for this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner has not provided a description of the ordinarily skilled artisan. However, Dr. Almeroth testifies that although he “do[es] not necessarily agree with every aspect of Dr. Williams’ explanation,” he bases 7 Neither party has presented evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. his opinions on Dr. Williams’s description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Almeroth Decl. ¶ 36. For this Decision, therefore, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’498 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams. See Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded by Dr. Williams’s testimony that WebShield teaches or suggests this limitation. See Williams Decl. ¶¶ 132–137. His testimony does not address the claimed sequence required by the claims and, in fact, quotes WebShield’s description of parsing and executing the embedded JavaScript files to create the DOM data structures relied on by Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth. See id. at ¶ 136 (quoting Ex. 1008, 5).” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree that Petitioner’s citations to WebShield do not disclose the sequence of operations called for by the claims. WebShield expressly states that “the HTML page, embedded JavaScript files and embedded CSS files will be parsed and executed to create the DOM data structures of the webpage.” Ex. 1008, 5 (emphasis added). As Dr. Almeroth explains, “WebShield does not remove an embedded script and then subsequently execute the removed embedded script. . . . WebShield . . . executes the embedded JavaScript without first removing that JavaScript from the web page, and only subsequently generates ‘the new HTML page [that WebShield] transfers to the client browser T(R).’” Almeroth Decl. ¶ 78 (quoting Ex. 1008, 6) (final alteration in original). We are not persuaded by Dr. Williams’s testimony that WebShield teaches or suggests this limitation. See Williams Decl. ¶¶ 132–137. His testimony does not address the claimed sequence required by the claims and, in fact, quotes WebShield’s description of parsing and executing the embedded JavaScript files to create the DOM data structures relied on by Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth. See id. at ¶ 136 (quoting Ex. 1008, 5).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,503,498 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,503,498
• Foil Boarding Company, Inc. v. MHL Custom, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00085 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, and 15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. 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.”8 The Director’s Memorandum explains that, when a petitioner makes a Sotera-type stipulation, “it mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB” and “[w]ith such a stipulation, if an IPR or PGR is instituted, the grounds the PTAB resolves will differ from those present in 8 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretio nary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Director’s Memorandum”). the parallel district court litigation.” Director’s Memorandum 7 (citing Sotera, IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19). Pursuant to the Director’s Memorandum, we “will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Id. Because Petitioner provides a Sotera-type stipulation, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision as it appears consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). Petitioner’s proposed definition appears overly restrictive, as it requires a graduate degree in a narrow field of engineering or equivalent experience. We find that a bachelor’s degree with the accompanying experience proposed by Patent Owner more closely aligns with the prior art of record and the ’659 patent. We note, however, there is some overlap in the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art because Patent Owner’s proposal includes “at least” a bachelor’s degree, which would encompass Petitioner’s master’s degree as well. Prelim. Resp. 19. Nonetheless, our determination herein would be the same under either party’s definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s claim construction. By using the word “or,” the plain and ordinary meaning of “prone, kneeling, or standing” is that only one must be satisfied to meet the claim. See, e.g., SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The disjunctive ‘or’ plainly designates that a series describes alternatives.”). Furthermore, and although claims are read in light of the specification, limitations in a specification are not read into a claim. In re van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even if the Specification describes embodiments in which the user can begin in a prone position and then transition to a kneeling or standing position, as Patent Owner points out (see Prelim. Resp. 20), the claim does not recite the term “transitioning,” and we do not read the terms “each of” or “substantially flat surface” into this claim limitation. For example, the claim does not recite a “substantially flat” top surface and Patent Owner’s attempt to infer this structure into the claim is not supported under the law. See id. at 29–30. For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and construe “prone, kneeling, or standing” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as alternatives, and the prior art need only show one to satisfy this aspect of the claim.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,586,659

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.