- EMC Corporation / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 20, 2018 · IPR2017-00374 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, 13, 15, 16, and 18–21 are unpatentable as obvious over OceanStore; anticipation and the OceanStore–Condor combination were not established, nor was claim 17 obvious over OceanStore.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The parties dispute the proper construction of the limitation “[r]epresenting with the corresponding software-based NAS component that the selected distributed devices respectively comprise NAS devices” as recited in claims 1 and 13. See Pet 11–12; PO Resp. 8–11; Reply 3–8. Specifically, the parties proposed the following constructions: Petitioner “using the corresponding software-based NAS components of the selected distributed devices to mimic dedicated NAS devices”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Although we agree with Patent Owner regarding the use of the term “respectively,” we do not understand its use to require “the selected distributed devices to cause each selected distributed device to separately appear to network-connected user devices as a dedicated NAS device.” We cannot construe individual terms in isolation. Rather, we must consider the claim as a whole in view of the specification. Specifically, we must consider the implications of other terms recited in claims 1 and 13 (e.g., “location information”) and how the claims are supported by the disclosed embodiments.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, specifically arguing that “Petitioners’ proposed requirements, especially with regard to work experience, are higher than can be reasonably supported.” PO Resp. 5–6. Patent Owner notes that Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Kubiatowicz, testified on cross-examination that “somebody coming directly out of college, likely, would need a couple of extra years to understand this,” and that “a little bit of professional experience might help them -- would help them understand the details involved in this case.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 2002, 25:13–14; 26:2–5). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Shenoy, testified that, at the time “of the ’827 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with 1–2 years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage systems, or a related field.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 19. According to Dr. Shenoy, “[l]ack of experience can be remedied by additional education or vice versa.” Id. Based on our review of the ’827 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’827 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Kubiatowicz and Dr. Shenoy, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, specifically that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with 1–2 years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage systems, or a related field.” We also determine that such a person would have been familiar with computer systems architecture and design, and would have been aware of design trends relating to distributed processing systems.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Based on the record before us, we are not satisfied Petitioner has shown adequately for an anticipation challenge that OceanStore discloses “wherein the respective client agents for particular distributed devices of the plurality of distributed devices have corresponding software-based network attached storage (NAS) components configured to assess unused or under-utilized storage resources in selected distributed devices of the plurality of distributed devices” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 13. Although it appears OceanStore discloses distributed routing in order to find and fulfill a request for an entity with a GUID (global unique identifier) (see Ex. 1003, 193), there does not appear to be an explicit disclosure that any software-based network attached storage (NAS) component on a distributed device assesses unused or under-utilized storage resources in selected distributed devices. Nor does Petitioner adequately explain how such an assessment would be inherent in the disclosure of OceanStore. We note that Petitioner cites to the prosecution history of the ’827 patent while making arguments regarding claim construction. See Pet. 12 n2. Although the ’827 patent prosecution history states that its “client agent programs must be capable of assessing what capabilities are spare and/or unused (unused or under-utilized)” (Ex. 1015, 8), such a statement by the patent applicant does not relieve Petitioner of its burden to point out where such a feature is found in the prior art reference that forms the basis of its anticipation challenge. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that OceanStore describes this limitation of claims 1 and 13. d. Summary Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that OceanStore describes every limitation of claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 13 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on OceanStore. 3. Analysis of Cited Art as Applied to Dependent Claims 3–9 and 15–21 Petitioner contends dependent claims 3–9 and 15–21 of the ’827 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) in view of OceanStore. Pet. 36–44, 46. For the same reason as discussed above in regard to independent claims 1 and 13 above, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–9 and 15–21 of the ’827 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on OceanStore.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,275,827 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,275,827 - Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00044 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 4-9 were not shown unpatentable because Ratsimor was not established as prior art; cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-13 was granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 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). We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We construe the terms “incentive program,” “incentive,” and “incentivizing” in accordance with these principles.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“C. Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 18) is before us for consideration. In the motion, Patent Owner requests cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of the ’646 patent. The cancellation of these claims is not based on any contingency. There is no indication, for example, that claims 1-3 and 10-13 should be cancelled only if the claims are determined unpatentable. Rather, the Motion to Amend leaves no doubt that Patent Owner unequivocally requests cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-13. For these reasons, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 1-3 and 10-13 of the ’646 patent. Because Patent Owner requested cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-13, not based on any contingency, Patent Owner has waived any issues with respect to claims 1-3 and 10-13, and, therefore, we need not address the patentability of those claims.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“prior art printed publication “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indexing is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but is among many factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“3. The Ratsimor Paper Is Not Prior Art For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Ratsimor paper is a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and, therefore, the Ratsimor paper is not prior art to the claims of the ’646 patent. Therefore, Petitioner may not rely upon the Ratsimor paper for its asserted grounds of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated that (i) claims 4 and 5 would have been obvious over the Ratsimor paper and Paul, (ii) claims 6-8 would have been obvious over the Ratsimor paper, Paul, and Kitaura, or (iii) claim 9 would have been obvious over the Ratsimor paper, Paul, Hall, and MacEachren.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,452,646 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,452,646
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.