• Luminex International Co., Ltd. / Menard, Inc. v. Signify Holdings B.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01469 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–15, and 18–20 are unpatentable; claims 8, 16, and 17 are not determined unpatentable under the asserted prior-art grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “G. Analysis 1. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we disagree with Patent Owner that Menard is a “real party in interest” under § 315(b). See Resp. 77–82; Sur-reply 27–28. First, the circumstances here differ materially from the circumstances in Ventex. There, two agreements defined the relationship between Ventex (the petitioner and manufacturer of Heatwave fabric) and Seirus (the alleged real party in interest and purchaser of Heatwave fabric). Ventex, IPR2017- 00651, Paper 152 at 7 & n.8. First, a 2013 Supplier Agreement “prevented Ventex from selling to Seirus competitors” and included an indemnity provision requiring Ventex to indemnify Seirus for losses arising from Ventex’s failure to perform certain obligations. Id. at 7, 14. Second, a 2016 Exclusive Manufacturing Agreement provided that Ventex would manufacture the Heatwave fabric only for Seirus in exchange for Seirus’s payment of an exclusivity fee. Id. at 7. Columbia (the patent owner) accused Seirus products incorporating the Heatwave fabric of infringing the patent at issue, and Columbia served Seirus with a complaint alleging patent infringement in 2014 more than two years before Ventex filed a petition in 2017. Id. at 5, 7. When determining that Seirus was a “real party in interest” under § 315(b), the Board reasoned that “Ventex and Seirus had a specially structured, preexisting, and well established business relationship with one another, including indemnification and exclusivity arrangements.” Ventex, IPR2017-00651, Paper 152 at 10; see id. at 12. Additionally, the Board noted that certain evidence “suggest[ed] that” slip op. at 32

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “G. Analysis 1. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we disagree with Patent Owner that Menard is a “real party in interest” under § 315(b). See Resp. 77–82; Sur-reply 27–28. First, the circumstances here differ materially from the circumstances in Ventex. There, two agreements defined the relationship between Ventex (the petitioner and manufacturer of Heatwave fabric) and Seirus (the alleged real party in interest and purchaser of Heatwave fabric). Ventex, IPR2017- 00651, Paper 152 at 7 & n.8. First, a 2013 Supplier Agreement “prevented Ventex from selling to Seirus competitors” and included an indemnity provision requiring Ventex to indemnify Seirus for losses arising from Ventex’s failure to perform certain obligations. Id. at 7, 14. Second, a 2016 Exclusive Manufacturing Agreement provided that Ventex would manufacture the Heatwave fabric only for Seirus in exchange for Seirus’s payment of an exclusivity fee. Id. at 7. Columbia (the patent owner) accused Seirus products incorporating the Heatwave fabric of infringing the patent at issue, and Columbia served Seirus with a complaint alleging patent infringement in 2014 more than two years before Ventex filed a petition in 2017. Id. at 5, 7. When determining that Seirus was a “real party in interest” under § 315(b), the Board reasoned that “Ventex and Seirus had a specially structured, preexisting, and well established business relationship with one another, including indemnification and exclusivity arrangements.” Ventex, IPR2017-00651, Paper 152 at 10; see id. at 12. Additionally, the Board noted that certain evidence “suggest[ed] that” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the ’336 patent’s effective filing date would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optics, or physics with at least three years of experience working in the design of LED lights or lighting fixtures; a master’s degree in one of the above disciplines with at least two years of experience; or equivalent experience.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26–29). Dr. Eden’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertion. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 27–28. Patent Owner “adopts for purposes of this proceeding only” Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Resp. 10 (citing Pet. 14). We adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’336 patent as” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Alleged Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness (i) General Principles Before reaching a conclusion about obviousness, we consider evidence concerning objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Apple, 839 F.3d at 1048. For such evidence to have substantial weight, “its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Roku, Inc., 140 F.4th 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (noting that the Board did not err by requiring “a nexus to the challenged claims as opposed to the patent as a whole”). “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). The patentee “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A rebuttable presumption of nexus arises “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Whether a rebuttable presumption of nexus arises “turns on the nature of the claims and the specific facts.” Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The presumption analysis should consider the unclaimed features in the product tied to the objective evidence to assess their significance and impact on the correspondence between the patented invention and the product. Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2022). When, “for example, the patented invention is only a small component of the product tied to the objective evidence, there is no presumption of nexus.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Absent a presumption of nexus, the patentee may prove nexus by” slip op. at 76

  Patent outcomesUS 10,299,336 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,299,336
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00848 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 41 is not shown …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 18 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52, EPRC 1:32. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “a semiconductor chip” (id. at 9:66) where “said semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction (Resp. 14) of “said semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as referring to “a semiconductor LED chip capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor LED chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 53 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 18 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’770 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 16. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’770 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 15

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Delaware held, with respect to related U.S. Patent 6,465,961, construed “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1024, 15–18). Petitioner responds that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1. We note that the language of claim 18 does not precisely match the language the District Court considered, it is substantively the same. The record supports a construction very similar to the construction the District Court adopts, and we reference the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 1024, 15– 18. We, thus, construe claim 18’s recitation that “said semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as referring to “a semiconductor LED chip that is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17

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

    “The facts above are evidence of the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, because the facts tend to make the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, more probable than it would be without the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 401(a) (defining evidence as relevant “if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”). The evidence is sufficient to support publication. Meanwhile, no evidence of record suggests that Krames was not a printed publication as of June 29, 2000. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports Krames’s prior art status. Patent Owner argues that Ms. Watters “never establishes a firm date when Krames was purportedly available to the relevant public.” Resp. 21. Patent Owner bases this argument by taking a tortured reading of Ms. Watters’s statement that “[m]embers of the interested public could locate a copy of [the Proceedings] on or after June 29, 2000, the date it was catalogued.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1020, 3); see also Sur-Reply 12–13. The best understanding of Ms. Watters’s statement, in view of the context of Ms. Watters explaining the library’s cataloguing process, is that a member of the interested public had two options: the person could choose to locate the Proceedings on June 29, 2000, or the person could choose to locate the Proceedings after June 29, 2000. Thus, the statement supports public availability as of June 29, 2000.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,634,770 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,634,770
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00129 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21–40, 42–44, 47–49, 52–53, 56–59, 62–63, 65–68, 71–73, 77–78, 81–82, 85–86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In the Reply, Petitioner uses the Krames declaration (Ex. 1028) to argue, for example, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used a lower amperage than the 1.5 A dc that Patent Owner’s Response focuses on. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 22). This use of the Krames declaration is timely because it responds to an argument Patent Owner makes in the Patent Owner Response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in . . . patent owner response.”). As to relevancy and whether the Krames declaration is applicable to the facts of this case, the issues at hand are (1) whether or not a person having ordinary skill would have had reason to use the Krames LED with Begemann with a reasonable expectation of success and (2) whether or not the Krames LED is capable of outputting light at greater than about 40 milliwatts. Again, we emphasize that claim 21 does not recite a method where the LED within the recited semiconductor light source actually outputs greater than about 40 milliwatts. The Krames declaration is relevant to the facts of this case because the declaration has bearing on whether or not a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the Krames reference’s LED with Begemann’s lightbulb design. See, e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶ 22. Patent Owner argues that evidence must be relevant to motivation to combine “an LED chip from the Krames article (operating at 1.5 amps to produce 170 milliwatts of output)” but claim 21 has no “operating at 1.5 amps to produce 170 milliwatts of output” requirement. What is relevant is that Krames discloses a single chip that has the capability of outputting more or less light depending on operating conditions. Pet. Opp. 3; see also Ex. 1008, 8 (providing that Figure 12 of the Krames reference is described as illustrating “[l]ight output vs. current characteristic of a blue … 1x1 mm2 AlGaInN LED in a power package, compared to a conventional AlGaInN LED in a 5 mm lamp a package”). Because claim 21 does not require actually running the recited LED at any particular wattage or amperage, it is appropriate for the Krames declaration to rebut Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would not have considered using the Krames LED with Begemann at high amperage by explaining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered using the exact same Krames LED with Begemann at a low amperage instead and that at this lower amperage the Krames LED would generate an amount of heat that would be easily dissipated by Begemann’s lamp while still providing an optical output of “greater than about 40 milliwatts” as recited by claim 21. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008, 8). The fact that the Krames LED is configured to run at the high amperage if desired for a different application does not negate the rationale for combining the Krames LED to run at a lower amperage.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19

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

    “particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s claim construction is well-supported by the record including the reasoning provided by the California and Delaware district courts. Ex. 2002, 19–21 (California district court explaining why the “reflective layers” must be distinct layers based on how claim 8 is structured and also explaining why the amount of reflection must be non-negligible); Ex. 2003, 2, 13 (Delaware district court explaining why reflection has to be more than negligible but need not reflect more light than the light absorbed or transmitted). We, thus, agree that “first and a second reflective layers . . . 10 Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction combines various statements made by the district courts into one statement. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2002, 19–21; Ex. 2003, 2, 13). serving to reflect light emitted by said active layer” means that the “first and second reflective layers are distinct from each other and reflect more than negligible light.” We further note that the preponderance of the evidence supports that as little as one percent light reflectance is “non-negligible” in this context. Reply 4; also Ex. 1032, 188:7–14 (Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Shealy, testifying that reflection “on the order of one percent” would be more than negligible); see also Tr. 53 (counsel for Patent Owner agreeing that Dr. Shealy opined that “three percent reflection is enough to be non-negligible”).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00123 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21–40, 42–44, 47–49, 52–53, 56–59, 62–63, 65–68, 71–73, 77–78, 81–82, and 85–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20

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

    “The facts above are evidence of the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, because the facts tend to make the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, more probable than it would be without the facts. See Fed. R. Evid. 401(a) (defining evidence as relevant “if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the 13 We note that Dr. Lebby does not directly state when the Proceedings were widely available. See Sur-Reply 14. evidence”). The evidence is sufficient to support publication. Meanwhile, no evidence of record suggests that Krames was not a printed publication as of June 29, 2000. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports Krames’s prior art status. Patent Owner argues that Ms. Watters “never establishes a firm date when Krames was purportedly available to the relevant public.” Resp. 25. Patent Owner bases this argument by taking a tortured reading of Ms. Watters’s statement that “[m]embers of the interested public could locate a copy of [the Proceedings] on or after June 29, 2000, the date it was catalogued.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1020, 3); see also Sur-Reply 13–14. The best understanding of Ms. Watters’s statement, in view of the context of Ms. Watters explaining the library’s cataloguing process, is that a member of the interested public had two options: the person could choose to locate the Proceedings on June 29, 2000, or the person could choose to locate the Proceedings after June 29, 2000. Thus, the statement supports public availability as of June 29, 2000.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00847 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because the Krames declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19

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

    “particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20

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

    “It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other claim terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961
• Target Corporation v. Proxicom Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00931 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 are unpatentable over Perttila alone or Perttila and Insolia; claims 37 and 43 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We instituted trial based on all asserted claims and grounds of unpatentability as follows: Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43, 102(b)3 Perttila 48, 52, 55 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43, 103(a) Perttila 48, 49, 52, 55 27, 31, 53, 54” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner concedes that the level of skill as defined by Petitioner “is generally sufficient for the Board to evaluate the Petition Grounds.” PO Resp. 9. However, Patent Owner also notes that “Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art does not include any reference to electronic commerce” and contends that “a POSITA should also have 1-2 years of experience designing or implementing systems for electronic commerce including the use of wireless communications.”5 Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 6–9, 22–24). The level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner appears to be consistent with that of the references, and we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. We note that we would reach the same conclusions herein using Patent Owner’s alternate definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Notwithstanding the arguments in its briefing, Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged during the hearing that the claims require the entity or object to have a physical presence. See, e.g., Tr. 8:17–19 (“[T]here’s no debate . . . that physical presence is connoted by the word ‘proximity’ and by ‘located.’”). There is, accordingly, no controversy regarding whether “an entity or object located in proximity to the second device” requires the entity or object to have a physical presence. Moreover, as explained below our decision does not depend on an express construction of this term. We conclude, therefore, that there is no need for us to construe this term. 2. “wireless device” Patent Owner argues that, as recited in the challenged claims, “wireless device” “refer[s] to wireless communication capabilities, not that a wireless device would be precluded from having any external wires whatsoever.” PO Resp. 19. However, Patent Owner concedes that construction of “wireless device” is “not necessary to resolve the dispute here.” Id. Petitioner argues that “‘wireless device’ should be construed to require a device without external wires,” noting that the claims of the ’359 patent recite a “wireless device” rather than a “wireless communication device.” Pet. Reply 5–6. However, Petitioner also concedes that “no construction of this term is necessary.” Id. at 5. No construction of this term is necessary. The parties both agree that no construction is needed, and as explained below our decision does not depend on a construction of this term.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “As noted above, Petitioner maps Perttila’s disclosure of “electronic coupon information including various offerings” to the recited “list of goods” and notes that the merchant-media device can be located in a store where the advertised goods are sold. Pet. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26, 39); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant identifies adequately any “list of goods” that Perttila’s remote server delivers to the first wireless device. At best, Petitioner and its declarant describe an iterative process whereby a user interacts with a plurality of tags or beacons in a store to receive multiple electronic coupons. Pet. Reply 17–18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner fails to explain adequately how delivering coupons one at a time in an iterative process constitutes delivering a list of goods as part of an electronic commerce transaction. Petitioner also refers to Perttila’s disclosure of delivering a restaurant menu. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner and its declarant again fail to explain adequately how sending a restaurant menu constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Perttila discloses that, in embodiments, the billboard may promote a food product and the user’s interaction with the billboard results in the server sending “a restaurant menu or a recipe involving that particular food or food type.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 26. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant explain adequately how this constitutes a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Notably, Petitioner and its declarant fail to identify any discussion or suggestion in Perttila of the user interacting with the menu after it has been delivered. Nor do we see any such disclosure in Perttila. Rather, Perttila merely discloses sending a restaurant menu as part of “electronic coupon information”: “In another application, the billboard may be promoting a food product, and the request to the remote server corresponds to a request for receiving electronic coupon information including, for example, a restaurant menu or a recipe involving that particular food or food type.” Id. Moreover, we note that Petitioner does not propose to modify Perttila’s system in some manner such that a user could interact with the delivered menu as part of an electronic commerce transaction. Petitioner also refers to Perttila’s disclosure of delivering a movie ticket. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44–50); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner and its declarant again fail to explain adequately how sending an electronic movie ticket constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Perttila discloses that its system may be used to purchase a movie ticket that is redeemed “at a time much later than the time when the electronic coupon is received.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. Perttila discloses purchasing the movie ticket and later using a menu displayed on the user’s mobile phone to activate and validate the ticket at the theater. E.g., id. ¶¶ 46–50. Petitioner fails to explain persuasively how delivering an electronic movie ticket in the manner disclosed by Perttila constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,090,359 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,090,359
• The Kingsford Products Company, LLC v. Creative Spark, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01831 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, and 26–32 are unpatentable; claims 3, 13–16, 18, 22, and 25 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “the briquets resulting from the combination of Burke, Wulf, and Peters, nor whether those microfractures could lead to deleterious results. Instead, the question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Burke, Wulf, and Peters in the manner claimed in the ’803 patent with a reasonable expectation of success. On this point, we have considered Dr. Speight’s testimony that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that using roller pressing to press grooves into a charcoal briquet as described in Wulf would have led to an unacceptably structurally weak charcoal briquet, subject to premature crumbling during combustion and likely to shatter during shipping, handling, and use. Ex. 2021 ¶ 89;9 see PO Resp. 11–19. Dr. Speight’s testimony is unsupported by additional objective evidence and, therefore, as discussed below, outweighed by Petitioner’s evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have wanted to use grooved briquets in order to provide improved ignition and combustion characteristics by enhancing air flow around the briquet. Ex. 1002 ¶ 94; Ex. 1006, 1:53–60; Ex. 1007, 1:54–61. In addition to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Ex. 1002 ¶ 94, both Burke and Peters state that the “provision of external surface discontinuities such as . . . slots or the like” is a way of “enhanc[ing] ignition or burning by enhancing air supply,” providing objective evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued grooves as a way of enhancing air supply to a charcoal briquet. Ex. 1006, 1:53–60; Ex. 1007, 1:54–61.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “benefits of adding grooves to charcoal briquets, Petitioner directs us to the testimony of Donald Swatling, who “has worked in the commercial charcoal briquetting field since 1999, has direct, personal experience using roller presses to make grooved charcoal briquets before 2004, and has supported the technical aspects of the commercial production of grooved charcoal briquets using roller presses.” Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 4–9) (emphasis removed). In his testimony, Mr. Swatling, a fact witness who approximates a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, “states that he was never aware of any concern that the standard roller presses used to manufacture charcoal briquets would cause structural weaknesses that would lead to premature crumbing during combustion if used to produce grooved briquets” or any concern that “roller pressing would cause a charcoal briquet to be unacceptably susceptible to breakage under normal shipping, storage, handling or use conditions.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 10–15). This is significant evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art was not troubled by the microfracture concerns Dr. Speight raises, or at least that a person of ordinary skill in the art was not so troubled that he would have been persuaded not to pursue roller-pressed grooves as an option in briquet design and production.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for petitioner

    “with a limited ignition time and an extended burning time.” Id. We disagree that this portion of Peters necessarily evidences an unmet need for “a charcoal briquet that achieved a cooking temperature of at least, about, or on the order of at least 1000 degrees Fahrenheit within about fifteen minutes after ignition, and sustained that temperature for at least fifteen minutes thereafter.” PO Resp. 48. Instead, it suggests a generic need, whether met or not, for an ignition phase of “limited” duration and a burn phase that is “extended” and “provide[s] adequate cooking time.” Patent Owner does not direct us to evidence in Peters that supports a finding that there was an unmet need for achieving a cooking temperature within about fifteen minutes or for sustaining the cooking temperature for at least fifteen minutes. Patent Owner also does not direct us to evidence in Peters that suggests an attempt and failure to meet a need for any particular cooking temperature. The second portion of Peters cited by Patent Owner states that “[t]here have been very [few] prior art developments related to design of solid fuel articles for desired combustion performance” and that these earlier developments “do not provide desired optimal ignition and burning characteristics.” Ex. 1006, 1:51–62; see also id. at 2:7–9 (increased surface area-to-volume ratio has not “provid[ed] optimal desired ignition and burning characteristics”). Again, this is not evidence of the unmet need for which Patent Owner argues: “a charcoal briquet that achieved a cooking temperature of at least, about, or on the order of at least 1000 degrees Fahrenheit within about fifteen minutes after ignition, and sustained that temperature for at least fifteen minutes thereafter.” PO Resp. 48. Thus, we are not persuaded that Peters supports the long-felt but unmet need for which Patent Owner argues.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Skepticism / industry praiseDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but we are not persuaded that Franke’s statements, even as supplemented by the testimony of Dr. Speight, show skepticism regarding the invention of the challenged claims. As discussed above, relevant skepticism is expressed at the time of the invention of the claims in question, and it is directed at the feasibility of the claimed invention itself or the results of that invention. Here, Professor Franke’s statements were made before 1917. The application leading to the ’803 patent was filed in 2011 and claims priority to applications filed as early as 2002. Ex. 1001, at [22], [63]. Thus, Professor Franke’s statements were made at least 85 years before the invention of the ’803 patent, not at or around the time of the invention. In addition, Professor Franke’s statements were directed at briquets made of a different material than the briquets of the ’803 patent—lignite coal, rather than charcoal. Furthermore, the briquets discussed by Professor Franke were made using technology available before 1917, not technology available in 2002 or 2011. Professor Franke’s belief that grooved lignite briquets made using early 20th century technology were likely to crumble prematurely during combustion thus is not sufficiently pertinent to the’803 patent to persuade us that it represents a relevant skepticism on the part of experts in the field at the time of the invention of the ’803 patent.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,131,803 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,131,803
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2017 · IPR2016-00159 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6 are unpatentable over Swimmer; claims 3–5 and 10–15 were not shown unpatentable on the grounds decided.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “11 Petitioner does not allege, and we do not find, that Martin teaches or suggests the “Downloadable scanner” and “database manager” elements that we find to be lacking from Swimmer in our analysis of claim 10 in Section III.B.4.a.iv, supra. Accordingly, for the additional reasons set forth in that section, we also are not persuaded that Petitioner has carried its burden with respect to claims 12–14, which each depend from claim 10.” slip op. at 58

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “5. Secondary Considerations Patent Owner contends that its patented inventions have received” slip op. at 60

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

    “accord to the evidence, rather than its admissibility, and are not the proper subject of a motion to exclude. Although we recognize that Mr. Hawes did not begin working at Virus Bulletin until 2006 and did not personally attend the 1995 Virus Bulletin Conference (see Ex. 2045, 7:8, 13:17–19), we credit his testimony as based on his personal knowledge of Virus Bulletin’s regular business practices and his understanding of Virus Bulletin’s business records derived from his employment at and role as Chief of Operations at Virus Bulletin (see id. at 12:25–13:9; Ex. 1088 ¶¶ 1–5; Ex. 1089 ¶¶ 1–9; see also Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (records kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity not excluded by hearsay rule)). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that because Mr. Hawes’s testimony is based on his perceptions, rather than on any alleged scientific or specialized knowledge, Patent Owner’s reliance on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Testimony by Experts”) is misplaced. See Pet. Opp. Mot. Excl. 10. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as it relates to Exhibits 1088 and 1089.” slip op. at 76

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “general approach for considering challenges to the admissibility of evidence was outlined in Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., Case IPR2013-00053, slip op. at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014),” which stated that, “similar to a district court in a bench trial, the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented.” Id. (citing Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received . . . .”)); see also Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Vaughan’s challenge goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of Lueptow’s testimony and analysis.”). In reaching our decision, we have considered and weighed the testimony provided by Dr. Goodwin and Dr. Medvidovic, as well as Petitioner’s arguments relying on that testimony, in light of Patent Owner’s arguments, but we decline to exclude the cited exhibits or the portions of the Reply citing them. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied to the extent it relates to Exhibits 1088 and 1089.” slip op. at 75

  Patent outcomesUS 8,677,494 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,494

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.