• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. NEC CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2025 · IPR2023-01241 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10–13, 19, 21, 23, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Ueda, the SIP Standard, and the SDP Standard, with Cohee added for claims 11, 13, 19, and 23.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience researching, designing, or developing content delivery systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 3 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). Because it is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’427 patent, we adopt the above articulation of the level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the term should be construed according to its ordinary and customary meaning, and that we need not construe the term explicitly because the meaning of the term is not relevant to the contested issues in the proceeding. 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))).” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered all the evidence of record relating to Mr. Taniguchi’s activities during the relevant time frame, we find that Patent Owner has not produced sufficient corroborating evidence to show that Mr. Taniguchi’s work on reducing to practice the claimed invention was reasonably continuous during the critical period between September 19, 2008 (the filing date of Ueda), and November 18, 2008 (the filing date of the Japanese patent application). Although there is corroborating evidence of diligence beginning on November 6, 2008, when Mr. Taniguchi transmitted a draft application to the Baba law firm, there is no evidence of any diligence prior to that date, other than Mr. Taniguchi’s own testimony. We do not agree with Patent Owner that the evidence of Mr. Taniguchi’s other activities for NEC, or research relating to IPTV, corroborate Mr. Taniguchi’s reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Although these activities may have something to do with the general subject matter of IPTV, Patent Owner has not shown any nexus between these activities and the challenged claims. See Naber, 567 F.2d at 385 (“It is well settled that, to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement . . . , the work relied on must ordinarily be directly related to reduction to practice of the invention . . . in issue.” (citing cases)). Although Mr. Taniguchi doubtlessly spent substantial time preparing the application he completed on November 6, 2008 (see Ex. 2017), there is no corroborating evidence that this work was reasonably continuous during the critical period. As far as the corroborating evidence attests, Mr. Taniguchi could have done no work on the draft until early November, or he could have worked on the draft briefly in August and put it aside until early November. Considering all the evidence as to Mr. Taniguchi’s activities, we find that Patent Owner has not met its burden of producing corroborating evidence that the named inventors of the ’427 patent exercised reasonably continuous diligence during the critical period when Ueda was filed until the constructive reduction to practice that occurred on November 18, 2008. Therefore, we determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ueda is prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 24

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

    “In general, we disagree with Patent Owner that, in showing a reason to incorporate the SIP Standard’s teachings about proxy servers, Petitioner must necessarily show that Ueda’s system was deficient or inferior. A patent challenger “does not need to show that there was a known problem with the prior art system in order to articulate the required rational underpinning for the proposed combination.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1002–03 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also, “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. For this reason and the specific reasons discussed below, we find Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive. The evidence of record suggests that it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to modify Ueda’s system by replacing direct communication between content-providing device 150 and servers 191 or 192 with an indirect connection in the form of proxy servers using well-known, predictable techniques as described in the SIP Standard.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 9,769,427 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,769,427
• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. NEC CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2025 · IPR2023-01240 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 14–18, 20, 22, 32, and 34–36 are unpatentable as obvious over Ueda, the SIP Standard, and the SDP Standard, with dependent claims 2, 3, 15, and 17 also relying on Cohee.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “Taniguchi’s activities during the relevant time frame, we find that Patent Owner has not produced sufficient corroborating evidence to show that Mr. Taniguchi’s work on reducing to practice the claimed invention was reasonably continuous during the critical period between September 19, 2008 (the filing date of Ueda), and November 18, 2008 (the filing date of the Japanese patent application). Although there is corroborating evidence of diligence beginning on November 6, 2008, when Mr. Taniguchi transmitted a draft application to the Baba law firm, there is no evidence of any diligence prior to that date, other than Mr. Taniguchi’s own testimony. We do not agree with Patent Owner that the evidence of Mr. Taniguchi’s other activities for NEC, or research relating to IPTV, corroborate Mr. Taniguchi’s reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Although these activities may have something to do with the general subject matter of IPTV, Patent Owner has not shown any nexus between these activities and the challenged claims. See Naber v. Cricchi, 567 F.2d at 385 (“It is well settled that, to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement . . . , the work relied on must ordinarily be directly related to reduction to practice of the invention . . . in issue.” (citing cases)). Although Mr. Taniguchi doubtlessly spent substantial time preparing the application he completed on November 6, 2008 (see Ex. 2017), there is no corroborating evidence that this work was reasonably continuous during the critical period. As far as the corroborating evidence attests, Mr. Taniguchi could have done no work on the draft until early November, or he could have worked on the draft briefly in August and put it aside until early November. Considering all the evidence as to Mr. Taniguchi’s activities, we find that Patent Owner has not met its burden of producing corroborating evidence that the named inventors of the ’427 patent exercised reasonably continuous diligence during the critical period when Ueda was filed until the” slip op. at 23

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

    “In general, we disagree with Patent Owner that, in showing a reason to incorporate the SIP Standard’s teachings about proxy servers, Petitioner must necessarily show that Ueda’s system was deficient or inferior. A patent challenger “does not need to show that there was a known problem with the prior art system in order to articulate the required rational underpinning for the proposed combination.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1002–03 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also, “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. For this reason and the specific reasons discussed below, we find Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive. The evidence of record suggests that it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to modify Ueda’s system by replacing direct communication between content-providing device 150 and servers 191 or 192 with an indirect connection in the form of proxy servers using well-known, predictable techniques as described in the SIP Standard.” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “(4) Whether Ueda Teaches Away from Providing Play-list Information While Establishing a Connection Finally, Patent Owner argues that Ueda teaches away from providing “play-list information” at the same time as establishing a connection, because Ueda teaches successfully completing user authentication before transmitting the playlist. PO Resp. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56, 365, Fig. 25; Ex. 2001 ¶ 99). According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s argument fails to reconcile[] this ordering of Ueda, which would prevent implementation of the proposed combination with the SDP Standard, in which the playlist is transmitted as part of the ‘Session Initiation.’” Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 100). In its Reply, Petitioner argues that limitation 1g “does not require transmitting ‘play-list information’ ‘at the same time’ as authentication, but at a same time ‘the one or more connection control servers executes a process for guaranteeing a communication bandwidth . . . as a process for establishing the connection.’” Pet. Reply 23. Petitioner also argues that the ’427 patent also describes an authentication step before transmitting the play-list information. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 12:56–13:13, 13:50–58, Fig. 4). We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive, and we disagree with Patent Owner that claim 1 restricts the timing of user authentication. As Petitioner notes, user authentication occurs in the ’427 patent before the process of establishing a connection as depicted in Figure 5. See Ex. 1001, 12:36–55, Fig. 4 (user authentication occurs when user equipment 2 is powered-up); id. at 13:50–58 (SIP message A501, at the beginning of Figure 5, includes “user authentication success information”). But we find nothing in the claim language, itself, that requires any particular timing for authentication. Nor do we understand Petitioner’s motivation-to-combine argument to hinge on the timing of authentication. Thus, Ueda does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 58

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

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive. Petitioner does not rely solely on the SDP Standard for teaching the sending of play-list information, but also relies on Ueda, which discloses sending a playlist including an identification of main content, commercial content, and an output sequence, as we discuss in more detail below in the context of limitation 1h. See infra Section III.D.3(g). Petitioner relies on the SIP and SDP Standards for teaching that Ueda’s playlist, as with other data describing a session, may be formatted and transmitted as payload within a standard SIP message, for example using SDP fields. Based on the evidence of record, we find it persuasive that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized SDP as a known way to format play-list information, since SDP has specific fields to convey the features of a playlist such as metadata and links to the content. See Pet. 50–52. Petitioner’s arguments are not based on improper hindsight bias. Although Petitioner argues that the SDP Standard “can” or “could” be used to format Ueda’s playlist, the evidence suggests that doing so would merely be “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods,” and that kind of combination “is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. The evidence shows that is the case here. As such, the Petition relies on the predictable combination of the prior art according to known methods and on various motivations to combine the references (see Supra Sections III.D.1–2), not on the ’427 patent itself, for teaching the combination.” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 9,769,427 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,769,427
• Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v. Unm Rainforest InnovationsInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00364 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 8 or substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons provided below, after considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine, based on the record before us, there is not a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in the field of the ’096 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and around two years of experience in the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 57). In turn, Patent Owner submits a slightly different description: that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in the technical field of the ’096 patent would have had at least a master’s degree in computer engineering or electrical engineering, or equivalent work experience, along with at least 1 year of experience related specifically to wireless communications, including knowledge of MIMO [(Multiple-Input Multiple-Output)] and OFDM.” Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 18). For the purpose of determining whether to institute trial, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’096 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art but our conclusions would be the same under Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Of note, the numerous claim terms construed in the Apple Litigation and referenced by the parties include the terms “data” and “non-data.” See Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005); Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1005). Both parties agree that “data” and “non-data” are to be given their plain and ordinary meanings. See Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1005); Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1005). As demonstrated in the analysis below, for the purpose of determining whether to institute review, we need not construe any claim terms and phrases to resolve the controversy before us. 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))).” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Joint Proposal’s legacy signal field (L-SIG) does not disclose data as recited in limitation 8[a]. Both parties agree that the term “data” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 16–18; Prelim. Resp. 22–23. The ’096 Patent utilizes the term “data” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1001 generally. We find that the Joint Proposal likewise utilizes the term “data” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, to describe data fields that include the PHY sub-layer Service Data Unit, and shown in each of the legacy PLCP packet format, Mixed Mode PLCP packet format, and Green Field PLCP packet format that include the PHY sub-layer Service Data Unit. See Ex. 1008, 11:11–13, Fig. 1. Indeed, in addressing limitation 8[b], Petitioner identifies the Joint Proposal’s data field in the Mixed Mode PLCP format as disclosing “data configured in a second format compatible with a second communication system,” as recited in limitation 8[b]. See Pet. 26–27. Petitioner, however, does not direct us to where the Joint Proposal discloses or describes the legacy signal field (L- SIG) as “data” according to its plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 25–26. Petitioner’s citations to the Joint Proposal fail to provide sufficient support for Petitioner’s position that L-SIG discloses “data” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1008, 11:4–6, 11:18–23. Petitioner further does not provide sufficient explanation why the Joint Proposal’s L- SIG otherwise constitutes “data,” according to the plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 25–26. The testimony of Dr. Hansen, cited by Petitioner to support its arguments, is no more illuminating. Compare Pet. 25–26, with Ex. 1002 ¶ 177.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,265,096
• Qualcomm Incorporated / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Network System Technologies, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00355 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted anticipation or obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “Based on Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in view of the Samsung litigation and the Qualcomm litigation. See Prelim. Resp. 10–22; supra § II.B. Petitioner argues that we should decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See Pet. 82–84. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. See infra §§ IV.E–IV.I. Hence, we do not consider discretionary denial under § 314(a).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of analysis, we adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’893 patent as well as the asserted prior art. For instance, “a master’s degree” and “three years of work experience” would have allowed someone to understand the ’893 patent as well as the asserted prior art. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 32. Moreover, someone with a higher skill level will understand the technology at least as well as someone with a lower skill level. See Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Hence, “it is generally easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We note that our analysis would not change if we adopted Patent Owner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan.” slip op. at 19

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

    “for “each data package comprising N data elements” is “significantly broader” than Petitioner’s proposed construction. See Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1026, 25; Ex. 1027 ¶ 164; Ex. 2034, 26. To decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial, we must determine the meaning of “each data package comprising N data elements.” Based on the current record, we agree with Petitioner that “each data package comprising N data elements” means “every data package communicated by the network stations has a fixed size of N data elements.”” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,072,893
• Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. And Sascha ConnellyInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00154 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the IMU–Okabe and IMU–Okabe–Li obviousness grounds and rejecting the § 315(b) time-bar argument.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “district court complaint does not trigger the time bar under § 315(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires that “an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); see also Rodriguez v. Fla. Dept. of Corrections, 748 F.3d 1073, 1076–77 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Because the Civil Rules require service of all pleadings, it follows that the exhibits to the pleading must also be served, regardless of whether they were filed at the same time.”); Sixta v. Thaler, 615 F.3d 569, 572 (5th Cir. 2010); Ringgold v. Burgett, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00836, 2022 WL 8044117, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2022). Here, Exhibits A–D to the complaint filed in the district court are part of the complaint. See Ex. 1026.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction in its Preliminary Response. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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)).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “given this laborious, non-graphical process for extracting a frame and creating a subsequent animation of the frame image in IMV6, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to modify IMV6 (as described in IMU) by at least enabling a user to animate an already-extracted frame image using simpler and more intuitive graphical user commands. Id. at 68–69 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 168). Petitioner contends that “Okabe teaches simple and graphical user commands that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found well-suited for implementing a GUI for at least animating an image (e.g., a frame image) in IMV6.” Id. at 69–70 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 170). According to Petitioner, “Okabe’s simple and graphical user commands thus enable creating looping animations ‘with less effort than with previous methods’ and ‘markedly reduces the user burden.’” Id. at 70 (citing Ex. 1009, 1–2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 170). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to modify IMV6 to include Okabe’s simple and graphical user commands to make the animation process easier, graphical, and less time consuming.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 171).” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,621,469
• ADT LLC / Alarm.Com, Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00714 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 6–11 as obvious over Oh, and claims 4, 5, and 12–17 as obvious over Oh, Forbes, and TS23.141.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Neither of those exceptions apply here, and for the reasons discussed below, we find the plain and ordinary meaning of “determining a current location of the user” to include determining a physical location of a computing device associated with the user.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “b) Our Analysis For the reasons below, we construe “aggregate presence service” to mean “a service that receives, stores, and provides presence-related information,” and we disagree with Patent Owner that such a service needs to include geographic location information obtained from a location service. The parties agree that that “presence-related information” already includes location information. Patent Owner’s proposal would have us read the requirement of using a location service into the claims, which, as discussed above, we decline to do on the record before us. As with “determining a current location,” discussed in Section III.C.1 above, we see no lexicographic definition or clear intent in the specification defining “aggregate presence service” in the manner that Patent Owner argues. To be sure, the ’739 patent specification does define other terms. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:42–44 (“The term computer readable media as used herein refers to both storage media and communication media.”). But the specification does not define “aggregate presence service” in any way, much less using such express language. The portions of the specification that Patent Owner points us to (PO Resp. 20–22) as defining the claim term fall well short of what is required under Federal Circuit precedent to show a lexicographic definition. In relevant part, all the specification says is that a “doorbell presence application” may provide an “[a]ggregate presence service” with information regarding a user’s location, and that “aggregate presence service 534 updates a presentity store 528 and enables watcher client application 504 to provide the notification to the user.” See Ex. 1001, 7:20–26, Fig. 5; see also id. at 7:40–61, 9:42–61, Figs. 6, 9. There is no disclosure in the specification distinguishing the term “aggregate presence service” from the term “presence service” in a specific way, let alone any other disclosure requiring the use of a location service in the manner that Patent Owner argues. The record therefore does not support Patent Owner’s position.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or computer engineering (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience in monitoring or telecommunications systems. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We determine, on the complete record, that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’739 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt that level in deciding unpatentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

  Patent outcomesUS 7,956,739 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,956,739
• Google LLC v. Ikorongo Technology LLC And Ikorongo Texas LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2023 · IPR2021-00205 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–7, 9–12, 21–23, 25–28, 37, and 39–42 are unpatentable as obvious over Horowitz and Kalasapur.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 5–7, 9–12, 21–23, 25–28, 37, and 39–42 of the ’554 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Horowitz and Kalasapur. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that claims 5–7, 9–12, 21–23, 25–28, 37, and 39–42 of the ’554 patent are unpatentable; and” slip op. at 41

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the purported invention would have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering, or equivalent engineering discipline, and approximately three years’ experience in media data management, mobile location, and data networking technologies. Williams, ¶47. Additional education could have substituted for professional experience, and significant work experience could have substituted for formal education. Williams, ¶47. adopted this proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 12– 13. Patent Owner agreed with this definition. PO Resp. 1. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the specification and the cited prior art, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The words of the claim require that the “location determination component” be “adapted to receive an identification of a geographic area.” Ex. 1001, 26:40–41. This geographic area is used in limitation 1e in the identification of a second media item with associated location information that is associated with the geographic area. Id. at 26:42–46. Information identifying this second media item is then presented. Id. at 26:47–49. Patent Owner identifies an element of the specification (“location determination function”) that has, in common with the disputed claim element, the words “location determination” and argues that it determines the location of the user device of claim 1. PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:33–41; Ex. 2014 ¶ 100); PO Sur-reply 4–5; Tr. 52:1–54:3, 56:21–57:12. However, this location determination function is not described in the specification as being used to identify a second media item and present information regarding that item, but instead only to obtain the location of device 14-1. Ex. 1001, code (57), 7:33–47.” slip op. at 10

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “location determination component is adapted to determine the current location of the user device.” Id. at 26:54–56 (claim 3), 26:57–58 (claim 4); see Pet. Reply 8. Patent Owner argues that the discussion of claims 3 and 4 by Petitioner is “a late claim construction argument that . . . should have been made in [Petitioner’s] petition, but which has been waived.” PO Sur-reply 5. However, we disagree that there is any change of theory, and we conclude that the discussion of these claims is within the proper scope of reply as a proper rebuttal argument. See Pet. 22–25 (discussing how “[t]he ’554 patent confirms” an understanding of location determination component in which a geographic area is selected by a user, as contrasted with a possible construction in which the location determination component uses a current location of the user device); PO Resp. 34 (arguing that the component that determines the location of the user device); Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706–07 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding it to be an abuse of discretion to reject a petitioner’s reply arguments relying on an additional example of an algorithm from a prior art document to further explain a position included in a petition); Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (not improper for evidence not included in a petition to be later introduced if the opposing party has notice of the evidence and the opportunity to respond to it); cf. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1346–1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding that waiver on appeal to the Federal Circuit precludes a party to litigation from changing claim construction on appeal but does not preclude a party from offering additional or new supporting arguments based on evidence of record for the party’s previously presented claim construction). We also note that Patent Owner did not file a motion to strike or request any further briefing and had ample notice to respond to this point. Thus, we consider the additional limitations in claims 3 and 4 and determine that a rebuttable presumption is created in this situation that the limitation found in the dependent claims should not be read into the independent claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314–15 (“Other claims of the patent in question . . . can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term. . . . Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms. . . . For example, the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” (citations omitted)). Patent Owner has presented no “strong contrary evidence” sufficient to overcome that presumption, and we discern none in slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,874,554 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,874,554
• Target Corporation v. Proxicom Wireless, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2021 · IPR2020-00977 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 9, 12–15, 22, and 24 are unpatentable; claim 22 was not shown unpatentable over Mgrdechian and Kulakowski because the proposed modification defeats that reference’s covert identifier security.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or a related field, and approximately 3-5 years of professional experience in the field of wireless communications.” Pet. 17. Petitioner acknowledges that “graduate education could substitute for professional experience” and “significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–20, 36–38). Patent Owner concedes that the level of skill as defined by Petitioner “is sufficient for the Board to evaluate the Petition Grounds.” PO Resp. 16–17. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). 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.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that it “interprets the claim terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the [S]pecification.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims use “a term of degree (e.g., ‘short range wireless connection’),” but does not explain how this assertion affects claim construction. Id. Petitioner acknowledges that “[a] district court in another proceeding has construed terms in related patents,” but argues that those “constructions do not impact the outcome of this IPR, because the prior art meets the claims under these constructions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67; Ex. 1021). “Patent Owner does not propose any terms for construction . . . .” PO Resp. 15–16. We determine that no express construction of any term is necessary.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are reiterations of arguments presented in the Preliminary Response and which we addressed in the Institution Decision. As we explained, Although Mgrdechian largely discusses the dating application embodiment of its messaging system (see Ex. 1005, 11:53–14:45), Mgrdechian contemplates use in other applications (see id. at 14:49–15:42). One such application “includes the use of the service and/or hardware for the electronic commerce applications including micropayments.” Id. at 15:11–13. To this end, a device’s profile information can include “items or services for sale.” Id. at 11:23–33; see also id. at 21:6–8 (disclosing that profile information may include “any items or services for sale”), 21:53–55 (disclosing that users can include information about “items for sale” in their profile information). By disclosing that “the service and/or hardware” can be used for “electronic commerce applications” (see id. at 15:11–13), we understand Mgrdechian’s descriptions of its dating application, particularly those upon which Petitioner relies, to apply to the electronic commerce application. Inst. Dec. 33. As we also explained in the Institution Decision, We further agree with Petitioner’s mapping and arguments that Mgrdechian discloses basing authorization for the electronic commerce transaction on the identifier, authentication information, and location information. Mgrdechian’s server uses the device ID (the identifier) received from Device A to retrieve profile information (the authentication information) associated with that ID (regarding User B). Ex. 1005, 10:62–11:22. The profile information of both users can include filter parameters that restrict from what entities a user will accept messages. Id. at 13:50–14:33. And, as noted above, the server can use the device’s GPS location information “to provide responses to User A’s request to initiate messaging or other actions” rather than relying on “direct communications between devices.” Id. at 7:16–19. Id. f. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not consistent with Swartz’s disclosure. Swartz discloses that a user’s “shopping list may be derived from a number of sources.” Ex. 1007, 39:12–13. One such source for creating a shopping list is “the item selection method, i.e., selecting from a store’s list of available goods.” Id. at 40:50–51. Selecting from the store’s list of available goods provides “assurance of a match between items selected by a customer and items including brand, quantity and price available at the facility” and, thus, “permits for home delivery of items.” Id. at 40:56–60. As Mgrdechian discloses a user, such as a business, providing a list of items for sale (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 11:28–33), incorporating Swartz’s teaching of home delivery of items selected for purchase does not require the “complete redesign” of Mgrdechian’s system as asserted by Patent Owner. We determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Mgrdechian to initiate delivery of purchased goods. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Mgrdechian and Swartz support Petitioner’s contentions that Mgrdechian and Swartz disclose the subject matter of claims 12 and 14, and we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable as being obvious over the combination of Mgrdechian and Swartz.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 8,369,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,369,842
• Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. v. Semicaps Pte Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2019 · IPR2017-02112 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 3, and 8–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hamada did not disclose the claimed sampling and accumulation, the obviousness theories were insufficient, and Quah was not proven prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “adequately address the pertinent issue—whether Petitioner’s proposed hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would lack the requisite experience and understanding of the art. Patent Owner does not identify adequately a substantive difference between Petitioner’s hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art and Patent Owner’s. See PO Resp. 17–20. For example, Patent Owner does not argue that an electrical engineer or physicist with two years of experience utilizing electronic circuit testing equipment would lack adequate knowledge of the use of lasers in circuit testing. To the contrary, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Woods, “generally agree[s] with petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]”—including the type of education and level of experience—and testified that “[t]hese techniques [of OBIRCH and TIVA] were known and widely used around the time of the invention of the ’982 patent to determine the location of defects in a semiconductor device and would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 30–31. To the extent that Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill is more than merely an elaboration upon Petitioner’s, we find it to be directed to a super-expert in a very narrowly defined field and calculated to undermine Dr. Mercer’s credibility while simultaneously promoting the credentials of its own experts. We do not find this litigation-induced argument persuasive. We determine that the definition offered by Dr. Mercer comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’982 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Accordingly, we apply Dr. Mercer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Thus, the parties agree that accumulating encompasses, at least, adding values together. This understanding is consistent with the specification’s discussion of accumulated samples. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:20–29. Petitioner initially asserted, in the Petition, that “accumulating” should be construed to include the act of averaging. Pet. 4–5. In the Institution Decision, we declined to construe “accumulating” as necessarily including the act of averaging. Inst. Dec. 7–8. In its Reply, Petitioner no longer advocates this as a matter of claim construction. See Pet. Reply 6. As discussed below, the parties address the issue as a factual matter, and specifically as to whether a prior art reference’s use of the term “average” discloses “accumulating” within the meaning of the claims of the ’982 patent. We again, as we did in the Institution Decision, Inst. Dec. 8, construe the term “accumulating” merely as encompassing the process of addition.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We do not find Petitioner’s dictionary-based “[b]y definition” argument to be persuasive as it is disconnected from the technology at issue. We cannot find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply, in this context, a lay dictionary’s general definition and thereby understand Hamada to disclose determining a plurality of samples. We credit the opinion of Dr. Woods, containing persuasive reasoning, and find that Hamada’s use of the word “average” does not disclose “determining a plurality of samples,” as Petitioner contends. We now turn to Petitioner’s arguments that are more closely related to the technology.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In support of its case, Petitioner reasons that “a POSITA would have considered it obvious to have configured Hamada’s electrical current meter 6 to determine a plurality of samples of the response signal, and to have configured signal processing and display 9 to add up this plurality of samples, in order to optimize Hamada’s averaging process.” Pet. at 23 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 24; Ex. 1014 ¶ 205). Neither Petitioner nor its expert elaborates on the conclusory assertion that performing the claimed determining and accumulating steps would have “optimize[d]” Hamada’s averaging process. Petitioner further reasons that: it would have been obvious for a POSITA at the time of the invention to have configured electrical current meter 6 and signal processing and display unit 9 to respectively measure and add multiple samples of the response signal to allow Hamada’s averaging process, in turn, to be performed on multiple samples. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 206). This reasoning is circular in that it is, effectively, an assertion that it would have been obvious to perform operations on multiple samples in order to perform the process on multiple samples. We also have considered Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition that the “motivation” comes from the “teaching or suggestion” provided by the disclosure of “averaging,” along with Petitioner’s string of reasons from KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). See Pet. 24, 43–44 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 206, 306). Petitioner does not develop adequately any of these reasons. An obviousness analysis requires more than “mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In its Reply, Petitioner repackages its “[b]y definition” argument as purportedly an obviousness argument. Pet. Reply 19–20. Petitioner argues that, “to the extent that Hamada does not explicitly disclose this limitation, a POSITA would have considered the act of configuring Hamada to measure and add multiple samples to have been obvious because that is what the definition of ‘averaging’ requires.” Id. (citing Pet. 23–26; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 204– 208). Although possibly an obviousness theory, this argument reads more like an assertion that the claimed determining and accumulating of a plurality of samples either is inherently or implicitly disclosed in Hamada (offered as an alternative if it is deemed not explicitly disclosed). Thus, Petitioner appears to take the position that the disputed limitation is not absent from Hamada, and Petitioner fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill would have seen a reason to modify Hamada. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find Petitioner’s “[b]y definition” argument persuasive in the anticipation context and, for those same reasons, do not find it persuasive when couched as an obviousness ground. We determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Hamada. Petitioner’s arguments as to dependent claims 2, 3, 8–16, 19, and 20 (Pet. 24–26, 44–45, 47) do not cure the underlying defect in its obviousness theory with regard to independent claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner also has not demonstrated that those dependent claims would have been obvious over Hamada. F. The Remaining Obviousness Grounds Based on Hamada in Combination” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,623,982 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,623,982
• Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2018 · IPR2017-02080 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Google's rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 3–23 because the petition did not show Zydney disclosed the claimed object field.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “We have considered Petitioner’s contentions but are not persuaded of any error in our Decision. Our Decision was premised not on a rejection of Petitioner’s proposed formulation of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “object field” limitation recited in claim 3, but instead on Petitioner’s failure to persuade us that Zydney’s “body” maps to the recited object field. A prior art reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Moreover, “[a]nticipation requires that a single reference ‘describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.’” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “For this reason, it has long been understood that ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim.” Id. But the disclosure of Zydney relied upon by Petitioner for the object field limitation of claim 3 is, at best, ambiguous.” slip op. at 5

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

    “In our Decision, we found that there was insufficient evidence on the record to support Petitioner’s contention that Zydney’s disclosure of a message “body” expressly discloses the recited object field and, further, that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that the claimed object field is inherently anticipated by Zydney. Dec. 17. We explained, in particular, that “[a]lthough Zydney discloses that its voice container includes ‘voice data,’ . . . Petitioner has not shown that voice data necessarily would be included in an ‘object field.’” Id. We, accordingly, determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that the object field limitation of claim 3 is disclosed by Zydney.” slip op. at 4

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

    “record to support Petitioner’s contention that Zydney’s disclosure of a message “body” expressly discloses the recited object field and, further, that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that the claimed object field is inherently anticipated by Zydney. Dec. 17. We explained, in particular, that “[a]lthough Zydney discloses that its voice container includes ‘voice data,’ . . . Petitioner has not shown that voice data necessarily would be included in an ‘object field.’” Id. We, accordingly, determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that the object field limitation of claim 3 is disclosed by Zydney.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “recites, in part, “a messaging system communicating with a plurality of instant voice message client systems . . . wherein the messaging system receives an instant voice message from one of the plurality of instant voice message client systems, and wherein the instant voice message includes an object field including a digitized audio file.” Ex. 1001, 24:15–27 (emphasis added). Petitioner alleges that claims 3–8, 11, 13, and 18–21 are anticipated by Zydney1 and that claims 3–23 also are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Zydney and certain other references (Pet. 6, 11–68), relying in each of the asserted grounds on Zydney as teaching the recited “object field including a digitized audio field” (id. at 17–19, 38).” slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,724,622

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.