- Linkedin Corporation v. Ebuddy Technologies B.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00176 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as anticipated by Odell and as obvious over Odell alone or with Daniell.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“A Motion to Exclude “must identify the objections in the record in order and must explain the objections.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Here, Patent Owner never filed or served any objections to Exhibits 1021, 1027, or 1028. On that basis, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion as to those exhibits. Also, we do not rely on the content of Exhibits 1022–1026 or 1030 in reaching our decision on the patentability of the challenged claims. Thus, we dismiss as moot the Motion as to Exhibits 1022–1026 and 1030. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide,5 79–80 (Nov. 21, 2019) (“In the Board’s experience, consideration of the objected-to evidence is often unnecessary to resolve the patentability of the challenged claims, and the motion to exclude is moot.”). Even so, we note that Patent Owner’s Motion does not satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) because it does not “identify the objections in the record.”” slip op. at 112
- Skill levelDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“distinguish among business relationships between IM services, or importantly, one that is rooted in the ’395 patent. See PO Resp. 7–8; PO Sur-Reply 7–10. Rather, treating the IM services together based on common ownership would appear to contradict the ’395 patent’s describing them as distinct services. See Ex. 1001, 3:52–55; see also Ex. 1001, 8:18–32. For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Patent Owner that a “messaging service provider” as recited in the claims is the entity that provides the instant messaging service (PO Resp. 7–8), and assign little weight to Dr. Surati’s testimony on this point (Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 114–118). Instead, we find persuasive Petitioner’s proposed meaning for “messaging service provider” and underlying arguments discussed above, namely, that this term means the computer system or platform providing a distinct messaging service (and not which company at any given time might own that system or platform), and credit the testimony of Mr. Willis in this regard (see Ex. 1040 ¶ 27 (“Two different homes in two different cities and rented to two different families are not one house, even if they are owned by the same investor.”); see also Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 23–33).” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“stores the aggregated contact list in a non-transitory computer readable medium at the web server.” So, we see no reason to construe the term “contact aggregation engine” itself to require network storage. Rather, Patent Owner’s network-storage argument supports the conclusion that “contact aggregation engine” is defined by the functions expressly recited in the claim. See PO Sur-Reply 11. slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,510,395 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,510,395 - PTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-01416 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, and 14–16 on all petitioned grounds based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Based on the arguments and evidence of record, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’523 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’523 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “at least a Bachelor’s or Master’s level college degree in Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science, Physics, Electrical Engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of training or experience in the design of inkjet cartridges and printheads.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–20). Patent Owner does not propose a description of the level of ordinary skill in the art or dispute Petitioner’s description. Prelim. Resp. 19–20. At this stage, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 20. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Studer ’708’s focus on venting air towards, rather than away from, its fluid interconnect port does not undermine Petitioner’s assertion that the system would vent in the opposite direction, as well. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Pond, presents testimony explaining when and how that would be so: “Studer 708’s air vents, air channels, and air spaces are open to the ambient atmosphere for the movement of air both to and from all such spaces.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 109. Further, “a PHOSITA would understand that the direction of this air flow is governed by air pressure inside and outside of the container and necessarily flows both internally and externally.” Id. ¶ 110. With this yet-unrebutted explanation, Petitioner has, at this stage, shown sufficiently that Studer ’708 discloses the claimed internal vent conduit for removing and releasing air, as the challenged claims require.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,938,523 - Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01599 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kalanick and Kemler, anticipated by Lalancette, or obvious over Lalancette and Kemler.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with one qualification. Inst. Dec. 19. We stated we would also expect a person of ordinary skill to have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner. Id. at 19–20. We reasoned that our review of the ’987 patent and the cited prior art did not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’987 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. at 20. However, we observed that our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 20.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Williams, Petitioner’s expert, “acknowledges that Lalancette does not disclose the use of a mobile communication device associated with the driver.” Id. (citing Ex. 2022, 128:14–129:25, 132:1–8). Patent Owner misrepresents Mr. Williams’s testimony. Mr. Williams was not asked whether Lalancette “discloses” a mobile communication device, but rather was asked “You’ll agree that La[l]ancette doesn’t identify the mobile computer as a mobile communication device associated with the driver?” Ex. 2022, 129:10–13. specifically referenced, that description is not in that passage.” Id. at 129:14–16. Notably, Mr. Williams also testified that (i) “[t]he nature of La[l]ancette requires some sort of computing device in the taxi that has the ability to receive and communicate in order to get information, for example, icon information from the central computer”; (ii) “mobile computer . . . has a variety of form factors inclusive of something like a [s]martphone”; and (iii) “[i]n the passage where [Lalancette] references mobile computer, it doesn’t have a specific form factor discussion such as referencing [s]martphones.” Id. at 125:17–22, 129:20–25, 132:5–8.” slip op. at 38
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. “indicator” In our Institution Decision, we construed the term “indicator” as a “code (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, for display to enable a match between a user/rider and a driver.” Inst. Dec. 22. We determined this construction was consistent with the description of an indicator in the specification of the ’987 patent. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:9–13). Neither party challenges this construction, which we maintain for this Final Written Decision. See PO Resp. 6; Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-reply 2.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Because the specification and prosecution history do not explicitly provide a definition for the term “generate,” we looked to extrinsic sources to determine its plain meaning. Inst. Dec. 24. The Federal Circuit has approved the use of dictionaries for guidance in claim construction, “so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the meaning otherwise apparent from the intrinsic record.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (approving of “consult[ing] a general dictionary definition of [a] word for guidance” in determining ordinary meaning); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. general dictionary definitions as an aid to claim construction.”) (citation omitted). One dictionary definition of “generate” is “to bring into existence: such as: . . . to originate by a vital, chemical, or physical process: PRODUCE.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate. We therefore construed the term “generate” as it relates to the controller in reference to a signal in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, which is “to originate or produce the signal.” Inst. Dec. 24–25.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,169,987 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,169,987 - Microsoft Corporation / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01420 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 36, or 37 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is not a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the claimed priority date for the ’398 patent would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with designing, programming, configuration, or analysis or research with Internet or similar network-related processes including, for example, user or entity profile management or web-based targeted content delivery, or a related field. A person also could have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 11). “Patent Owner does not challenge this definition.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’398 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner does not direct us to evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Madhavan discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged in the claim, specifically, that “automatically generating and storing electronic indicia of an association between the first device identifier and an electronic identifier of a second device” is “based on automatically recognizing that each of the first and second devices was connected, independently of the other, to a common local area network.” Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood Madhavan to teach that the stored electronic indicia of an association between user devices (i.e., the IP address of the network interface module 146) is based on automatically recognizing that each device was independently connected to a common LAN” is supported only by Dr. Turnbull’s identical testimony. Pet. 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 82. Dr. Turnbull’s testimony, however, is not supported by a sufficient underlying factual basis, and, therefore, is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 12 at 5 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2023) (Vidal, Director) (Precedential). The disclosures of Madhavan (Ex. 1007, 5:11–17, 7:22–26, Fig. 2) cited by Petitioner (Pet. 31–32) and Dr. Turnbull (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–82) are silent regarding any automatic recognition that each of network television 142 and DVR 144 was connected, independently of the other, to a common LAN, and therefore, fail to disclose any generation and storage of the IP address of the network interface module 146 being based on any automatic recognition that each of network television 142 and DVR 144 was connected, independently of the other, to a common LAN. See Ex. 1007, 7:22–26, Fig. 2 (cited by Pet. 31–32). Instead, Madhavan merely discloses that network 120 may be a LAN and “both the television set 142 and the [DVR] 144 may be coupled to the network 120 via a network interface module 146, which may also be identified through a respective IP address.” Ex. 1007, 7:22–26; see also id. at 5:11–16 (similar disclosure). Moreover, Petitioner’s parenthetical quotation of the ’398 Patent disclosure that “[t]he existence of the common IP address associates the online access IP address and the set-top box IP address” is insufficient to support Dr. Turnbull’s testimony because it is not prior art. Pet. 32 (quoting Ex. 1001, 13:47–495))” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner does not direct us to evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Madhavan discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged in the claim, specifically, that “automatically generating and storing electronic indicia of an association between the first device identifier and an electronic identifier of a second device” is “based on automatically recognizing that each of the first and second devices was connected, independently of the other, to a common local area network.” Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood Madhavan to teach that the stored electronic indicia of an association between user devices (i.e., the IP address of the network interface module 146) is based on automatically recognizing that each device was independently connected to a common LAN” is supported only by Dr. Turnbull’s identical testimony. Pet. 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 82. Dr. Turnbull’s testimony, however, is not supported by a sufficient underlying factual basis, and, therefore, is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 12 at 5 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2023) (Vidal, Director) (Precedential). The disclosures of Madhavan (Ex. 1007, 5:11–17, 7:22–26, Fig. 2) cited by Petitioner (Pet. 31–32) and Dr. Turnbull (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–82) are silent regarding any automatic recognition that each of network television 142 and DVR 144 was connected, independently of the other, to a common LAN, and therefore, fail to disclose any generation and storage of the IP address of the network interface module 146 being based on any automatic recognition that each of network television 142 and DVR 144 was connected, independently of the other, to a common LAN. See Ex. 1007, 7:22–26, Fig. 2 (cited by Pet. 31–32). Instead, Madhavan merely discloses that network 120 may be a LAN and “both the television set 142 and the [DVR] 144 may be coupled to the network 120 via a network interface module 146, which may also be identified through a respective IP address.” Ex. 1007, 7:22–26; see also id. at 5:11–16 (similar disclosure). Moreover, Petitioner’s parenthetical quotation of the ’398 Patent disclosure that “[t]he existence of the common IP address associates the online access IP address and the set-top box IP address” is insufficient to support Dr. Turnbull’s testimony because it is not prior art. Pet. 32 (quoting Ex. 1001, 13:47–495))” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,677,398 - BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00641 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that Hebinuma teaches the oval trenches recited in claim 6. See Ex. 1027, Fig. 9. In addition, we agree that Petitioner’s proposed combination would have been obvious because it amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known element for another, i.e., Hebinuma’s elliptical trenches for Torii’s rectangular ones. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Thus, with the analysis outlined above, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered combination would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See id. at 418. Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,247,867 - BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00631 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“petition in IPR2022-00631 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd, IPR2022-00631 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 1, 2 (petition), 4 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00631 and granted BMW’s motion for joinder. Paper 28 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). Similarly, General Motors LLC (“GM”) filed a petition in IPR2022-00641 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd., IPR2022-00641 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 2 (petition), 3 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00641 and granted GM’s motion for joinder. Paper 29 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). VW and Patent Owner then reached a settlement and this proceeding was terminated only as to VW. Paper 30 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2022). Accordingly, we refer to BMW and GM, collectively, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it mischaracterizes Petitioner’s reliance on Torii. Petitioner does not rely on a single structure as disclosing both the claimed source electrode and conductive portions. Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,247,867 - BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2021-01321 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not proven unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,247,867 - Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 15, 2023 · IPR2021-00475 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10, 15, 18, and 19 are unpatentable based on anticipation by Maher and obviousness over Maher, Maher and Hooley, Zurek and Levy, or Zurek, Levy, and Hooley.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’460 patent and the cited prior art. For purposes of this proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it in our anticipation/obviousness analysis below.10” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“equalization setting” recited in claims 1 and 15 should be construed as “an equalization setting for audio playback.” Prelim. Resp. 15–18. We did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction in our Institution Decision and accorded “an equalization setting” its ordinary and customary meaning, without express construction. Dec. on Inst. 10. As noted above, Patent Owner does not reassert its argument regarding claim construction in its Response. See generally PO Resp. For the reasons stated in the Institution Decision, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “an equalization setting.” See Dec. on Inst. 9–11. And, by failing to renew its claim construction argument in the Response, Patent Owner has waived this argument.11 See Paper 19, 8 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”). Based on the fully developed trial record, we determine that claim construction is not disputed and that no claim construction is necessary to make this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on our consideration of the contentions of the parties and our weighing of the related evidence, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports a conclusion that Maher discloses in Figure 4 and the related description an embodiment that can be used to practice the methods of Figures 1–3. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that Maher does not describe a method where a device determines equalization settings for an integrated speaker and Patent Owner’s attempt to distinguish claim 1 from Maher and the Maher/Hooley combination on this basis.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on our consideration of the contentions of the parties and our weighing of the related evidence, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports a conclusion that the combination of Zurek and Levy teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the relevant teachings of Zurek and Levy as recited in claim 1. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that combining the teachings of Zurek and Levy as proposed in the Petition would render Zurek inoperable for its intended purpose. More specifically, we do not share Patent Owner’s view that adding Levy’s output processing to Zurek’s system would result in rendering Levy’s input processing inoperable for its intended purpose because we agree with Petitioner that (1) Zurek is not limited to processing voice inputs, and (2) input and output equalization are not mutually exclusive, but rather the underlying acoustic processing is the same.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,219,460 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,219,460 - Infineon Technologies AG v. Arigna Technology Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01382 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8 and 9 were not shown unpatentable because Fujii did not disclose the claimed range, and the claimed range was critical over Inagawa and Hebert.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person with a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or a related degree) and at least three to five years of experience in the area of miniaturization, optimization, and fabrication processes of semiconductor devices used in integrated circuits.” Pet. 8. Further, “[a] person with less education, but more relevant practical experience, is also a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide a description of the person of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 18. Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). We adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION We determine we need not explicitly construe any terms to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As the court in E.I. DuPont recognized, an overlapping range in the prior art is sufficient for obviousness “in the absence of evidence indicating that there is something special or critical about the claimed range.” E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Petitioner asserts Patent Owner “failed to present such [criticality] evidence.” Pet. Reply 1–2. We disagree. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that the claimed 10–40 nm range is critical (and thus not obvious) because it “provide[s] an optimal balance between cell size and short circuit defect rate.” PO. Resp. 63. This criticality is reflected in the ’867 patent’s Figure 8, which shows that dimensions below 10 nm result in significant increases in short-circuit defect rate, while dimensions above 40 nm undesirably increase size without further reducing short-circuit defect rate. Ex. 1001, 11:20–32, Fig. 8.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner
“prior art is sufficient for obviousness “in the absence of evidence indicating that there is something special or critical about the claimed range.” E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Petitioner asserts Patent Owner “failed to present such [criticality] evidence.” Pet. Reply 1–2. We disagree. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that the claimed 10–40 nm range is critical (and thus not obvious) because it “provide[s] an optimal balance between cell size and short circuit defect rate.” PO. Resp. 63. This criticality is reflected in the ’867 patent’s Figure 8, which shows that dimensions below 10 nm result in significant increases in short-circuit defect rate, while dimensions above 40 nm undesirably increase size without further reducing short-circuit defect rate. Ex. 1001, 11:20–32, Fig. 8.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,247,867 - PTAB · Jan 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01090 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–42 and 46–66 on all asserted obviousness 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
“Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that claims 1–42 and 46–66 would have been obvious over the asserted prior art. See id. at 33–96. Patent Owner raises several objections to Petitioner’s obviousness showing. We address those issues below.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“§ 325(d) because one of the asserted references, Nishitani, “was substantively considered by the Examiner during Supplemental Examination of the ʼ436 Patent.” PO Prelim. Resp. 7–8. In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). For the reasons given below, we are not persuaded to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition based on § 325(d).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“The main concern motivating the General Plastic framework is “the potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks on patents” by a petitioner who files “[m]ultiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims . . . . using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.” General Plastic, Paper 19 at 17. Here, the potential for abuse is minimal because this is the first time this petitioner has challenged the ’436 patent, and Patent Owner does not allege any connection or relationship between this Petitioner and the previous petitioners that might warrant exercising our discretion to deny institution. PO Prelim Resp. 14–15; Sur-reply 8–9; compare Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods. Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9–10 (Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (exercising discretion to deny institution based on a different petitioner’s earlier-filed petition where the different petitioners were co- defendants in a related district-court litigation, and where both petitioners were accused of infringing the challenged patent based on the same product incorporating technology licensed from petitioner Valve). In addition, it is reasonable that Petitioner filed its own Petition after the three previous petitions filed by unrelated parties given that “the present litigation dispute between Petitioner and Patent Owner did not begin until March 2021—well after the last of the three prior IPR petitions was filed.” Pet. Reply 10. Thus, this subsequent challenge against the ’436 patent appears to be a result of Patent Owner’s litigation activity, rather than Petitioner’s abuse of the review process. We find the circumstances in this case do not warrant denying the Petition under § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionOther
“required in claims 1 and 18 “mean[s] that the two images are ‘captured independently of each other and without metadata (or other information) relating angles of cameras that captured the images.’” Pet. 5 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 20). In addition to its expert, Petitioner cites as support the patent’s prosecution history, in which Patent Owner asserted this definition. Id. at 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003, 167–169; Ex.1004 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction in its Preliminary Response. Based on the present record, we agree with Petitioner that images that are not a stereoscopic pair means that the two images are captured independently of each other and without metadata (or other information) relating angles of cameras that captured the images.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,078,436
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.