- Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00653 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’504 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 72); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 47. As reflected above, Dr. Wooley’s testimony as to element [1.2] does not even assert that Cardamone discloses a tank, let alone one or more sensors disposed at a tank as recited in element [1.2]. Thus, Dr. Wooley’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s argument on this issue.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,726,504 - Tanklogix, LLC v. SiteproInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00650 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–32 and 34 were unpatentable over Kahn or Kahn and Gutierrez.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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) (2024). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’871 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 18–32 and 34 of the ’871 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The respective proposed levels of qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art are similar, with Patent Owner proposing two years of experience compared to Petitioner proposing significant experience with remotely controlling fluid-handling devices, like SCADA systems. Patent Owner also proposes more extensive experience in lieu of educational experience. While we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications to be acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’871 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the qualifications adopted.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“actuators and the remote control of fluid handling devices, including the receipt with the user-interface module of “a user command to actuate an actuator via a presented control interface” (limitation [18.7]) and “account authorized to send commands to remotely control fluid handling devices” (limitation [18.11]). We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses or teaches these limitations because the evidence does not provide support that there is remote control of fluid handling devices or the use of a user command on a control interface to send a command to a fluid handling device, for instance. Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but we do not discern that it teaches or discloses the capability to remotely control fluid handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, the Kahn disclosures that Petitioner repeatedly relies upon for allegedly teaching this control are deficient. See Ex. 1005, 10:62–67, 14:35– 15:2, 15:62–16:32; see also Pet. 12–14, 16–18. Kahn discloses that “the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance.” Ex. 1005, 10:62–67. Communication unit 112B is part of the local “sensor unit,” wherein the detection conditions determined by the sensor are communicated to remote devices by communication unit 112B. See id. at 3:31–33, 5:62–6:2, 6:27–35, 7:33–37, 13:7–12, Figs. 1A–1C. Kahn discloses that the sensor units, which include communication units 112B, can be located near shut-off valves and can communicate with distant locations. See id. at 11:1–13. There are no disclosures, however, in the above passages that there is remote control of fluid handling devices, that there is a user command on a control interface that actuates an actuator, or that there is a command sent to the facility actuators via a network connection, as required in limitations [18.5]–[18.7] and [18.9]–[18.12], respectively. Rather, the disclosure indicates that the communication unit 112B includes on-site alerts and that the local (non-remote) communication unit 112B can be interfaced with the control valve.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,488,871 - Tiktok Inc. v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 27, 2023 · IPR2022-01546 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 were unpatentable as obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of the ’154 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Lett’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have been a person with a working knowledge of digital video and audio technologies.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor of Science, a Bachelor of Applied Science, or a Bachelor of Engineering degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to digital video and audio technologies. Id. Alternatively, Petitioner contends, “the person could have also had a Master of Science, Master of Applied Science, or Master of Engineering degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purpose of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’154 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that no claim terms require an express construction at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 14; Prelim. Resp. 13. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute.7 See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Third, as noted above, Petitioner also argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that elapsed playback time would be indicated by time stamps included in the audio content. Pet. 15–16. But, on this aspect of Petitioner’s contention, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Lett provides any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a time stamp in Lindroos’ audio data. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. As reflected in our discussion above, Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding Exhibits 1010–1013 is unsupported by the references cited. Thus, Petitioner’s assertion that this limitation was “well known” and “would have been obvious” to one of ordinary skill in the art is not supported on the record before us. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate on the present 13 Mr. Lett states that he “refer[s] to these other publications . . . merely for purposes of corroborating this common background knowledge recognizable to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] at the time.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. record that it was “well known and would have been obvious” “for elapsed playback time to be indicated by time stamps included in the audio content.” Pet. 15–16 (citations omitted).14” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,615,154 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01125 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over Henley or Shoham and Richardson.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). While the elements must be arranged in the same way as is recited in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Identity of terminology between the anticipatory prior art reference and the claim is not required. Prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Certain terms recited in the challenged claims were construed during prior litigation of the ’451 patent, i.e., the parent of the challenged ’932 patent. Ex. 1011 (claim construction order in cases involving Microsoft and Apple); Ex. 2009, 5 (clarification of certain claim constructions on summary judgment). Patent Owner advocates that we adopt such prior constructions in this proceeding, and Petitioner “does not dispute” such constructions. Pet. 10–13; Prelim. Resp. 6–8. We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1011, 16–17; Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 7. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in challenged independent claims 1 and 22, as well as in challenged dependent claim 4, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1011, 2–13; Pet. 11–12; Prelim. Resp. 7. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in challenged independent claim 1, as well as challenged dependent claims 2 and 26, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1011, 22–23; Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 7.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject and two or more years of experience working with computer networks and the accessing and presentation of networked resources to users in the 1996 timeframe.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 51). Petitioner adds that “[t]his description is approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 28). Both parties support their proposals with testimony by their respective experts. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 51; Ex. 2005 ¶ 28. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“distinction. See Ex. 2005 ¶ 30 (“Henley discloses a ‘video optimized stream server system 10,’ also referred to as ‘media streamer,’ for use by broadcasters to deliver content to end users, or viewers.”). In particular, Dr. Almeroth observes that, in Figure 1 of Henley, reproduced above, system controller 64 is illustrated graphically as connected to multiple user controls 65, but is shown connected only to a single display 66. Id. ¶ 31. This structure, in combination with Henley’s description of the drawing, leads Dr. Almeroth to conclude that user control 65 “corresponds to a ‘set top box[]’” for an end user, and that system controller 64 corresponds to a separate “‘user interface’ for the operator.” Id. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth points to Henley’s description of system controller 64 as “respond[ing] to inputs from user control set top boxes 65 to cause commands to be generated that enable media streamer 10 to access a requested video presentation.” Id.; Ex. 1013, 8:30–32 (emphasis added). Dr. Almeroth also notes Henley’s explanation that “[s]ystem controller 64 is further provided with a user interface and display facility 66 which enables a user to input commands, such as by hard or soft buttons, and other data to enable an identification of video presentations, the scheduling of video presentations, and control over the playing of a video presentation.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 31; Ex. 1013, 8:33–38. These disclosures by Henley support Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion that “[t]his ‘user interface and display facility 66’ is for an operator—not an end user.” See Ex. 2005 ¶ 31. Dr. Almeroth provides additional reasoning to support this conclusion. For example, Henley explains that “[s]ystem controller 64 responds to inputs from user control set top boxes 65 to cause commands to be generated that enable media streamer 10 to access a requested video presentation.” Ex. 1013, 8:30–32. In light of this, because an end user would interact with the set-top box shown as user control 65, Dr. Almeroth reasons that “it would make no sense” for display 66 to be for the end user. Ex. 2005 ¶ 32. We agree with this reasoning. In addition, Dr. Almeroth observes that Henley describes two types of interfaces for media streamer 10, a command line interface and a graphical user interface. Id. ¶ 33 (citing Ex. 1013, 18:47–50). Because the command line interface can be used for “batch” functionality, Dr. Almeroth reasons, and we agree, that the command line interface is for broadcast operators, rather than for end users. Id. With respect to the graphical user interface shown in Figure 8, reproduced above, Dr. Almeroth further reasons that a person of skill in the art would understand that it relates to operator controls, rather than end-user controls, because Henley specifically describes it as showing keys “used to operate the media streamer.” Id. ¶ 34; Ex. 1013, 4:5– 6. In other words, according to Dr. Almeroth, “[t]he graphical user interface corresponds to the command line interface.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 34. Dr. Almeroth’s reasoning is compelling. Notably, Figure 8 shows “Batch” button 130 and “Import/Export” button 132 to “move video data into and out of the media streamer.” See Ex. 1013, 19:20–22, 19:30–31. As Dr. Almeroth testifies, these are not functions that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be available for end users, but are appropriate for broadcast operators: “None of these commands are consistent with those that would be available to an end user of, e.g., a set top box or pay-per-view system.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 35. In light of this compelling testimony, we agree with Patent Owner and find that “Henley . . . does not describe . . . the end user’s interface or controls.” See Prelim. Resp. 22.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,965,932 - Termax Company v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00106 · APJ Rae Lynn P Guest · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on the sole design claim because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Scroggie or obviousness over Scroggie, Scroggie and Benedetti, or Benedetti and Scroggie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Scroggie is based entirely on the premise that we cannot consider the appearance of the lower platform. See Pet. 32 (“Factoring out unclaimed features and the functional aspects of the lower platform, a side-by-side comparison of the remaining aspects of the claimed design . . . illustrates the D’826 design is identical in all material respects to Scroggie and is anticipated . . . .”). Indeed, on the record before us, Petitioner does not address the design as a whole, to the extent that it includes the appearance of the lower platform, in order to show that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would deem the design depicted in Scroggie to have the same overall visual appearance as that claimed in the ’826 patent. Rather, Petitioner asserts that “there are no differences between Scroggie and the claimed design.” Pet. 41. Indeed, on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that the lower platform is significant to the overall appearance of the fastener design, and thus Petitioner’s analysis is not sufficient on this record. Because we disagree with Petitioner’s premise that the lower platform’s appearance is primarily dictated by function, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to this ground.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“platform is not visible “at all times during the fastener’s normal use,” but is “hidden from view.” Pet. 24. Again, the use of the fastener is not limited to use with a seal for a vehicle. Petitioner provides no evidence of manufacturing techniques, sales, advertising, or installation, to support the contention that “[f]rom manufacture, sale and installation, the lower platform is enshrouded by the perimeter seal.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 65). And, although Petitioner relies on Mr. Wheelock’s testimony, that testimony is unsupported on the record before us. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 65 (failing to identify any support for his opinion). Accordingly, we give Mr. Wheelock’s testimony on this point little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Additionally, as noted above, we are not persuaded that a seal is a necessary component for a general fastener, and, thus, we are not persuaded that fasteners are not manufactured or sold without seals attached. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that such a position is not supported by case law.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person having at least a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years of experience in push-in fastener engineering, and specifically sealing fasteners, as used in the assembly of vehicle trims.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 37). Patent Owner argues that the Petitioner’s definition leaves out a key detail “that the person actually has to be a ‘designer’” and “incorrectly alleges that the person at issue need only be someone with ‘experience’ with push-in fastener ‘engineering,’ without any experience whatsoever in designing them.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. However, Patent Owner also asserts that an ordinary designer is “[a] person having an engineering degree and at least three years of experience in designing fasteners with designs similar to the ‘D826 patent, or comparable qualifications acquired through work experience.” Id. at 12 (bold emphasis added). Because Patent Owner’s definition includes qualifications acquired through “work experience” broadly, we think the parties’ definitions are quite close. In particular, neither definition strictly requires three years of design experience in fasteners; rather, each includes comparable qualifications through other work experiences in fastener technology. Accordingly, the result is not impacted based on whether we rely on Petitioner’s definition or Patent Owner’s definition of the skilled artisan. Further, based on the limited record before us, we note that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art designs of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In construing the design claim, if the particular appearance of a design aspect is dictated by its function, the functional element’s appearance cannot significantly contribute to an ornamental design because it would necessarily have the same appearance in any other device where it serves the same function. Sport Dimension, 820 F.3d at 1321 (“[T]he fact finder should not focus on the particular designs of these elements when determining infringement, but rather focus on what these elements contribute to the design’s overall ornamentation.”). Accordingly, if a feature is shown in the prior art as a whole having a variety of appearances and yet serves the same function, the appearance is likely not critical to its function, or that feature would have looked identical in each device’s design. See Best Lock, 94 F.3d at 1566 (“A design is not dictated solely by its function when alternative designs for the article of manufacture are available.”); L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123 (“When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.”). Thus, to determine what visual aspects of a design are primarily functional, any analysis must consider how that feature appears throughout the prior art and whether and what aspects of that feature appear consistently.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - PTAB · Dec 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and examiner error was not shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its petition. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Advanced Bionics, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and determined not to institute inter partes review. Dec. 7−26 (citing Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmbh, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential)). As to Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that the same or substantially the same arguments were presented previously to the Office. Id. at 10−13. Under Part 2 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that Petitioner failed to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’654 patent. Id. at 14−26.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s arguments are new arguments raised for the first time in its Rehearing Request. Petitioner acknowledges that “NRG and Hollmer were not cited in the Petition.” Req. Reh’g 10. Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges that it “could not have anticipated the Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the Droplets decision, nor the Board’s reliance on this mischaracterization,” and that Petitioner was not authorized to file a reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Id.; see also id. at 2−3, fn.1. Petitioner’s new arguments in connection with Hollmer and NRG are improper. As we discussed above, Patent Owner did not mischaracterize and we did not misapprehend Droplets. It was not necessary to authorize Petitioner to file a reply, as we were capable of determining whether Patent Owner mischaracterizes Droplets. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to recognize that the language relied upon by Patent Owner in Droplets is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 and MPEP § 608.01(p). Although Petitioner relies on MPEP § 608.01(p) in its Petition, Petitioner now in its Rehearing Request for the first time suggests that we should ignore MPEP § 608.01(p) and the case law cited in MPEP § 608.01(p). Pet. 11–12; Req. Reh’g 6−7. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments, after the decision has noted the deficiencies in the petitioner’s original analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). It is Petitioner’s burden to identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision to Institute. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked the new arguments that were not presented in the record until after the Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, section 1.57 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations is not a “statute,” but a regulation that became effective on September 21, 2004. See 69 Fed. Reg. 56,482. The ’882 application, which incorporated Chu ’886 by reference, was filed on September 8, 1998, and issued as Chu ’330 on February 5, 2002. Ex. 1005, codes (21), (22), (45), (60), 6:1–7. The ’654 patent, which incorporated the ’882 application by reference, is a reissue of Application No. 09/312,199 (“the ’199 application”) filed on May 14, 1999, now U.S. Patent No. 6,634,777 (“the ’777 patent”), issued on November 4, 2003. Ex. 1001, codes (63), (64); 5:63–67. Both the ’882 application (issued as Chu ’330) and the ’199 application (reissued as the ’654 patent) were filed and issued as patents prior to the effective date, September 21, 2004, of 37 C.F.R. § 1.57. Petitioner does not explain why the applicant should have complied with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57, which did not exist at the time of filing of those applications or issuance of those patents that incorporated by reference Chu ’886 and the ’882 application. Pet. 7–8, 10−17; Req. Reh’g 1−12. We decline to apply 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 retroactively to the incorporation by reference statements submitted in the ’882 application and the ’199 application.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - Autostore System Inc. v. Ocado Innovation LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00798 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“storage locations, but that this grid is defined by a structural framework. Ex. 1001, 14:5–6. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the language of claims 1 and 23 strongly suggests that the structural framework defines the grid of storage locations, and not merely that the structural framework provides open areas within which storage containers could be arranged in a grid-like pattern.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed in Section II.A.2 above, we construe “a structural framework defining a grid of storage locations,” as recited in claims 1 and 23, to require that a “structural framework” define the grid of storage locations, as opposed to these locations being defined merely by the orientation or location of stacked containers. Petitioner identifies no Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1 and 23 are anticipated by Lert.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“would have been obvious over Lert. Pet. 21–53. Petitioner’s obviousness arguments with respect to these claims do not resolve the issues noted above with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 23. In particular, Petitioner provides no persuasive argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lert to have a structural framework that defines the storage locations or to have delivery containers stored within storage containers and delivered to picking workstations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8, 13–20, and 23 would have been obvious over the disclosures of Lert.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,796,080 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2021 · IPR2021-00607 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 14–38 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and Petitioner failed to show material Examiner error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“[U]nder § 325(d), the Board uses the following 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, Paper 6 at 8. If the petitioner fails 7 to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his or her discretion not to institute inter partes review. Id.; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24 (exercising discretion where “Petitioner has not pointed to error by the Examiner”). 1. Part I – whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Fourth, Petitioner argues that, because the subject matter added from Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain before it was added by amendment in the ’138 application and then filed with the U.S. Application No. 13/294,108 (“the ’108 application”), the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’140 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is the date of filing the ’108 application, November 10, 2011. Pet. 14−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, “[w]hen claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification,” in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p), 8th Ed. Rev. 8 (July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 26−30. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’140 patent is November 10, 2011. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that “the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu 21 ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’140 Patent.” Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24.” slip op. at 21
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - PTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding substantially the same arguments had been presented before and Petitioner failed to show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under § 325(d), in “determining whether to institute [an inter partes review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(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 at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized “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). For the reasons stated below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’654 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“3. § 325(d) Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the ’654 Patent claims. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review. 26 IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain before the amendments in the ’138 application, the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under § 112, ¶ 1, is the filing date of the ’108 application, i.e., November 10, 2011, “the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 Patent claims relying on this subject matter.” Pet. 15−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, when claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential 25 material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p) (8th Ed. Rev. 8 July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 28−33. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’654 patent is November 10, 2011.” slip op. at 25
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01613 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 and 5–15 unpatentable over Milewski, or claims 1–3, 7–9, and 12 obvious over Milewski and Heijden.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached
“The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 3–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience in the fields of messaging systems, and wireless communication devices, or an equivalent advanced education in the field of messaging systems, including wireless communication devices. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308
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.