• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00692 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–14 as anticipated by Best and obvious over Best, and claim 15 as obvious over Best, Mills, and Bonella.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “construction “requires two layers of IC packages, in which a first IC package (the Board’s ‘carrier’) contains one or more second IC packages (the Board’s memory chips).” PO Resp. 39. Petitioner counters that “[t]he Board’s construction does no such thing.” Pet. Reply 18–19. We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument is predicated upon the erroneous assertion that “[e]ach memory chip in the Board’s ‘carrier’ requires a different IC package (i.e., a second IC package) that encloses at least one memory die.” PO Resp. 39. Each memory chip does not require its own integrated circuit package. On the contrary, it may be, as Best discloses, a die enclosed with another die in a single IC package. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain our construction of “memory module” to mean “a carrier that contains one or more memory chips,” where “carrier” encompasses an integrated circuit package.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Otherwise, we determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We have reviewed the arguments provided by Patent Owner and determine such arguments are insufficient to have Mr. Maltiel’s declaration excluded in its entirety. Rather, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); and Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within [its] discretion.”). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that we should give the entirety of Mr. Maltiel’s declaration no weight.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “8–14. Pet. 30–37, 44–49. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Best.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,874,831 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,874,831
• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00561 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–7 were held unpatentable as obvious over Averbuj and Tsern; trial as to claim 1 was terminated based on collateral estoppel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that “collateral estoppel does not apply to the application of the claim 1 limitations in assessing dependent claims 2–7.” Id. at 2. Patent Owner further asserts “[a] party seeking to apply collateral estoppel based on a prior action must show that (1) the identical issue was actually litigated; (2) the issue was actually decided in a final decision on the merits; (3) the issue was necessary to the final decision; and (4) the party being estopped was adequately represented in the prior action [i.e. “the United Access test”].” Id. at 2 (citing United Access Techs., LLC v. CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC, 778 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). We agree that this is the proper test to use to assess the applicability of collateral estoppel. Nevertheless, we note United Access applies collateral estoppel in a different context and suggests that issue preclusion can be applied in an obvoisness challenge, even if the final decision on the original issue was considered under an anticipation challenge. In particular, in United Access it was noted that “[i]ssue preclusion [traditionally called “collateral estoppel”3] applies to issues litigated in prior disputes . . . [and, thus, i]t thus makes no difference that the earlier no-damages-due-to-competition ruling arose in a case under the Truth in Negotiation Act and that this dispute arises under the False Claims Act and the common law.” United Access, 778 F.3d. at 726. The “issue” of whether Averbuj teaches the limitations of claim 1 is identical to the issue in and has been litigated in the ‘970 IPR which found that Averbuj anticipates the limitations of claim 1.” slip op. at 10

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

    “1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the ‘434 Patent would have been someone with “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Patent Owner asserts through its declarant: [A Person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been] working on the design of memory devices, would have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and at least five years of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Master of Science degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and at least three years of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. Also alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Doctorate degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and have at least one year of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. I agree with Petitioner’s expert that the memory industry requires a POSITA with industry experience. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 32–33. 16 Neither party has argued that the difference between the parties’ articulated level of skill should change the analysis as to patentability. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill, above, and acknowledge that, commensurate with that articulation of the level of skill, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Pet. 41. In other words, Petitioner asserts that because a BIST unit can be incorporated into a chip mounted on a PCB and because memory module 12 is part of the BIST unit, memory unit 12 is mounted on a PCB. We disagree. Unlike claim 1, which simply requires the memory unit is “on” the PCB, claim 2 requires that the memory module be a “physically separate component” and “mounted” on the PCB. Petitioner has not shown sufficient support for its broad reading that a module which is a circuit embedded in a larger circuit included in a chip may be considered a physically separate component mounted on a PCB. Claims 3–7 depend from claim 2, and the Petition fails to provide additional prior art disclosures that cure the deficiency with respect to claim 2; that is, disclosure of separate components 22 mounted on a printed circuit board in Averbuj. Pet. 41–48. Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, its assertion that claims 2–7 are anticipated by Averbuj.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,001,434 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,001,434
• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00562 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 4 was held unpatentable as obvious over Averbuj and Tsern; the trial was terminated as to claim 1 based on collateral estoppel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The court noted that because the expert “failed to explain how specific references could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific references would yield a predictable result, or how any specific combination would operate or read on the asserted claims,” the expert’s testimony was conclusory and bore no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements. Id. at 1327. Although the declarant’s testimony here goes further than in Active Video, it fills in gaps about how the combination would be made with only conclusory testimony that appears to be tainted with hindsight.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Skill Analysis Petitioner asserts “[a] a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘501 Patent would have been someone with “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST” Pet. 6 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Patent Owner asserts through its declarant: [A Person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been] working on the design of memory devices, would have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and at least five years of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Master of Science degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and at least three years of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. Also alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Doctorate degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and have at least one year of industry experience designing memory devices and controllers. I agree with Petitioner’s expert that the memory industry requires a POSITA with industry experience. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 32–33. Neither party has argued that the difference between the parties’ articulated level of skill should change the analysis as to patentability. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill, above, and acknowledge that, commensurate with that articulation of the level of skill, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

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

    “a. Claim 1 Claim 1 is anticipated by Averbuj under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See supra Section II. A. b. Claim 4 Claim 4 recites “[t]he memory system of claim 1, wherein the memory system comprises at least two physically separate integrated circuit packages, wherein each of the at least two physically separate integrated circuit packages comprises at least one data handler of the plurality of data handlers.” Petitioner asserts that Averbuj discloses that BIST units are “commonly incorporated into memory chips and other integrated circuits.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ [0003]. Because the memory interfaces are part of a BIST unit, Averbuj also discloses the memory interface (10, 41) is commonly incorporated into (memory or other) chips, or “integrated circuits.” Ex. 1012 at 98, 277; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 126. Averbuj further discloses that the device block (6) and the components contained therein, such as the sequencer (8) and the memory modules (12), are “distributed” and “located throughout an electronic device,” i.e., physically separated. See e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ [0013], [0015]; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 127. Since memory interfaces (10, 41) are also components of each device block (6), at a minimum, the different sets of memory interfaces (10, 41) belonging to different device blocks (6) must also be physically separated. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 127. Averbuj also discloses that the various integrated circuits or chips of an electronic device are “mounted on a circuit board,” indicating that the integrated circuits and chips comprising the electronic device are packaged integrated circuits or chips. Ex. 1005 at ¶ [0005]; Ex. 1016 at 1:15-27; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 128. Therefore, Averbuj discloses that the memory interfaces (each containing a “data handler”) of different device blocks (which comprise a “memory system”) must be distributed across “at least two physically separate integrated circuit packages.” Ex. 1003 at ¶ 129. Pet. 30–31. In other words, Petitioner asserts that because the sequencer can be” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “There must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). For example, in ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon, our reviewing court 7 Patent Owner chose not to request additional briefing to address this ground and arguments in the Preliminary Response are generally waived (Paper 8, 2–3), however, we acknowledge these arguments due to the unusual circumstance created by the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS and to explain the background in the context of Patent Owners’ Motion to Strike. held that the following expert testimony on the motivation to combine was deficient as a matter of law: [Y]ou wanted to build something better. You wanted a system that was more efficient, cheaper, or you wanted a system that had more features, makes it more attractive to your customers, because by combining these two things you could do something new that hadn’t been able to do before. Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The court noted that because the expert “failed to explain how specific references could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific references would yield a predictable result, or how any specific combination would operate or read on the asserted claims,” the expert’s testimony was conclusory and bore no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements. Id. at 1327. Although the declarant’s testimony here goes further than in Active Video, it fills in gaps about how the combination would be made with only conclusory testimony that appears to be tainted with hindsight. As to other of Petitioner’s arguments supported by its declarant, we find those to employ hindsight to piece together the device as claimed. The expert provides a host of rationales for separating the components of Averbuj into separate ICs including structures of Tsern (Ex. 1003 ¶ 143) and other secondary references. We acknowledge that Tsern contains structures that suggest the claimed configuration of the data handlers, but in this ground Petitioner does not assert Tsern as a reference, rather simply as evidence of the knowledge of one of skill in the art. Pet. 34–38. Relying on knowledge in the art does not obviate the need to prove a reference is prior art as of the critical date and show a motivation to combine existing slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,359,501 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,359,501
• Hamamatsu Corporation v. Sionyx, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 28, 2018 · IPR2016-01910 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13–18, 21, and 23–25 were held unpatentable; claims 12 and 26 were not, based on the stated anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the prior art anticipates the challenged claims and how the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance with the above-stated principles. slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Souri, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’591 patent “would hold a bachelor’s degree in physics, electrical engineering, or a related discipline, and have at least one year of experience working in the field of semiconductor processing or optoelectronic device design.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 32; Pet. 8. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 7 n.2. Based on our review of the ’591 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’591 patent and cited prior art, the testimony of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s declarants, and the arguments and evidence adduced at trial, we agree with and apply Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. See Inst. Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “that it would not affect incident light.7 We agree with Petitioner that Nakashiba’s “contact surface S1 is exposed to air, which has a refractive index of about 1, and is formed on a silicon substrate, which has an index of refraction between 3.5-6.5, depending on the wavelength of light,” and “[t]hus, there will be an interaction (reflection and/or refraction) with [incident] light at the contact surface S1.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 30, 31); see id. at 7. We credit the testimony of Dr. Souri, who testifies as to differences in the refractive indices of air, silicon, and a finger, and that, when there is a change in refractive index between materials, there is an interaction with light. See Ex. 2012, 119:22–121:16. Dr. Souri further testifies that [W]hen light is incident upon a boundary between materials of different refractive index, both refraction and reflection occur, as is depicted in the diagram above. The fraction of incident light that is refracted, and the fraction which is reflected, may be calculated by Fresnel’s equations, using the angles of incidence and refraction given by Snell’s law. . . . [A] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these reflection and refraction effects constitute an interaction with electromagnetic radiation; and, consequently, said person would understand that the roughened surface S1 of Nakashiba satisfies the requirements of the term “interact” as used in the claims of the ’591 patent.” slip op. at 23

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

    “a textured region interacting with electromagnetic radiation in a manner that results in an enhanced response and/or filtering of the radiation, the embodiments do not require the textured region to provide this enhanced response and/or filtering and further, do not define the term “interaction” as an enhanced response or filtering. See Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 908 (“[T]he specification does not describe the invention as limited to embodiments having pressure jackets, and none of the other reasons that have been invoked for giving claims a narrow reading are present.”). The claim language “interact with” is plainly broader than Patent Owner’s proffered construction, and the “position” limitations can be read to encompass features not described in the written description. See Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 908 (“The fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.”)” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,680,591 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,680,591
• Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20–31 are unpatentable over Monroe ’183; claims 15 and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Monroe ’183.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, inter alia, “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a real party in interest to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term real party in interest to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over the petitioner relating to the inter partes review. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15). We have considered Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we determine that Petitioner was not required to identify the Third Parties as real parties in interest because there is insufficient evidence that any of these companies exercised, or could exercise, control over Petitioner with respect to this proceeding. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the motion practice before the Court of Federal Claims and notification of that action to the Third Parties does not reflect otherwise. Although we acknowledge that the existence of the above-identified indemnification clauses supports Patent Owner’s argument, we are unaware of any inter partes review decision in which a real party in interest finding was based solely on evidence of an indemnification clause, and we decline to do so here.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner

    “We decline to consider Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge as, generally, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments.” See Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”); Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003); but see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014- 00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“for the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The ’980 patent states that “the term ‘secured location’ may refer to residences, commercial properties, public venues, such as hospitals and sports arenas, government facilities, military installations and any other location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.” Ex. 1003, 3:20–24. This definition is non-limiting and does not exclude a changeable area or region. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we maintain that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’980 patent of “secured location” is “any location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although the Specification of the ’980 patent gives examples of “response agency,” e.g., Ex. 1003, 1:41–43 (“an emergency response agency (e.g., the police department, the fire department or an emergency medical team)”), Patent Owner does not identify, and we do not find, a definition in the specification limiting “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments. Patent Owner also does not identify, and we do not find, anything in the entire disclosure of the ’980 patent requiring a “response agency” to be distinct from the “surveillance system infrastructure.” Accordingly, we decline to limit “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments, or construe it to be distinct from surveillance system infrastructure.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,323,980
• Apple Inc. / HTC Corp. et al. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00923 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lambrecht; claims 4 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Lambrecht with Artieri and Moore, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). The words of a claim generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, and that is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are a part of, and are read in light of, the specification. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Although it is improper to read a limitation from the specification into the claims, the claims still must be read in view of the specification of which they are a part. See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004). slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Stone, Petitioners assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’789 patent would be an individual who possesses (1) an accredited Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering; and (2) at least three years of experience in the fields of data compression and overall computer system architecture. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 74–77). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Thornton, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’789 patent would be an individual who possesses (1) an accredited Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent degree; and (2) at least two to three years of experience in signal/image processing and computer architecture at both the systems and micro-architecture levels. Ex. 2003 ¶ 27. In lieu of the two to three years of experience, Dr. Thornton testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’789 patent may hold a Master’s or other graduate degree in electrical or computer engineering with a focus in computer architecture and signal/image processing, along with one year of relevant experience. Id. Putting aside the subtle distinctions in the assessments of the level of skill in the art put forth by both declarants, Dr. Thornton testifies that, if he were to apply Dr. Stone’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, his “analysis and conclusions would remain unchanged.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 28. Because Dr. Stone’s assessment of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’789 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt it and apply it to our evaluation below, but note that our conclusions would remain the same under Dr. Thornton’s assessment.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Lambrecht together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, we agree with Petitioners that, when Lambrecht’s PCI bus 120 is placed in multimedia mode, it allows real time, multimedia data transfers between multimedia device 144D (which Petitioners identify as the decoder (Pet. 15)) and main memory 110. See Pet. 13–14, 17–19; Pet. Reply 3–7. Lambrecht discloses that “multimedia devices 142D–146D communicate with each other and with CPU 102 and main memory 110 via the PCI bus 120, as is well known in the art.” Ex. 1032, 27:57–59. Lambrecht further discloses that “multimedia devices 142D–146D also communicate data between using the PCI bus signal lines 120 when the PCI bus 120 is in the multimedia mode.” Id. at 27:59–62; see also id. at Fig. 21 (illustrating how PCI bus 120 is coupled to multimedia devices 142D–146D and PCI bridge chipset 106, which, in turn, interfaces with main memory 110). Based on these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in Figure 21 of Lambrecht, multimedia devices 142D–146D have access to main memory 110 in multimedia mode because Lambrecht discloses that multimedia devices 142D–146D communicate both with each other and main memory 110 via PCI bus 120, and also communicate data using the same PCI bus signal lines 120 when PCI bus 120 is in multimedia mode. See Ex. 1030 ¶ 78 (addressing the limitations recited in independent claim 1). In addition, upon considering these cited disclosures in Lambrecht, Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Stone, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, when PCI bus 120 in Figure 21 is placed in multimedia mode, it “provides for real-time[,] multimedia data transfers.” Ex. 1044 ¶ 4. We credit Dr. Stone’s testimony in this regard because it is consistent with Lambrecht’s description of Figure 21. See id. (citing Ex. 1032, 26:53–56, 27:57–62). Moreover, there is nothing in reference to Figure 21 and its corresponding description suggesting that, when PCI bus 120 is placed in multimedia mode, multimedia device 144D is precluded from accessing main memory 110 and operating in real time.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 5,812,789 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,812,789
• Hamamatsu Corporation v. Sionyx, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · May 26, 2017 · IPR2016-01910 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted for claims 9, 24, and 25 because Petitioner did not show their process limitations lacked patentable weight; it was denied for claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 13.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The relevant inquiry is not whether the Specification has support for an “enhanced response,” but whether the Specification supports construing the claim term “interact with” to mean an “enhanced response and/or filtering.” Even assuming, without deciding, for the purposes of this decision, that diffusing, redirecting, and absorbing electromagnetic radiation results in an increased quantum efficiency that could be considered to provide an enhanced response to electromagnetic radiation, Patent Owner fails to demonstrate persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the description in the ’591 patent Specification that the claim term “interacting with” is defined as “providing an enhanced response and/or filtering.” Furthermore, we are unable to discern a portion of the Specification of the ’591 patent that discloses such an equivalency. Not only does the ’591 patent not define “interact with,” the Abstract of the ’591 patent discloses that “[i]n one aspect, the textured region is operable to facilitate generation of an electrical signal from the detection of infrared electromagnetic radiation” and “[i]n another aspect, interacting with electromagnetic radiation further includes increasing the semiconductor substrate’s effective absorption wavelength as compared to a semiconductor substrate lacking a textured region.” Ex. 1001, Abstract (emphasis added). This passage suggests that, at least in one aspect, “interact[ing] with” electromagnetic radiation includes merely generating electrons from photons, which is not an “enhanced response” and/or “filtering,” as required by Patent Owner’s proffered claim construction.” slip op. at 4

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

    “position with sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 do not impart structural and functional differences to the product. Moreover, Petitioner does not point to citations in the ’591 patent, testimonial evidence, or any other record evidence to support its position that the structure or functionality of the textured region resulting from the chemical etching or lasing processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 would be the same as the structure or functionality of a roughened surface produced by a mechanical polishing process as disclosed in Nakashiba. Rather, Petitioner provides only conclusory statements regarding its position. Given that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that the limitations recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 are not entitled to patentable weight, and in light of Petitioner’s concession that “Nakashiba does not disclose that the roughened surface S1 is formed by either lasing (in particular using short duration laser pulses) or chemical etching, as recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 of the ‘591 Patent,” we determine Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to showing that claims 9, 24, and 25 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Nakashiba.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Upon review of the record, we determine Petitioner did not support its position with sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 do not impart structural and functional differences to the product. Moreover, Petitioner does not point to citations in the ’591 patent, testimonial evidence, or any other record evidence to support its position that the structure or functionality of the textured region resulting from the chemical etching or lasing processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 would be the same as the structure or functionality of a roughened surface produced by a mechanical polishing process as disclosed in Nakashiba. Rather, Petitioner provides only conclusory statements regarding its position. Given that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that the limitations recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 are not entitled to patentable weight, and in light of Petitioner’s concession that “Nakashiba does not disclose that the roughened surface S1 is formed by either lasing (in particular using short duration laser pulses) or chemical etching, as recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 of the ‘591 Patent,” we determine Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to showing that claims 9, 24, and 25 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Nakashiba.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,680,591
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00306 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 63 was not shown unpatentable because Spinney does not disclose performing the selecting and determining steps in parallel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “First, we give no credit to Dr. Chao’s opinion in this regard because it is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

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

    “is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,023,853 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,023,853
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00303 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Huey and ATM UNI; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “PO Mot. 13–14. A motion to exclude is the wrong vehicle to challenge public availability, which is a substantive issue that goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, not to admissibility at issue here. FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, slip. op., Paper 113 at 4 (PTAB September 3, 2015) (“A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence.”); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). For the reasons above, we do not exclude Exhibit 1028.” slip op. at 9

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To qualify as a prior art printed publication, the reference must have been disseminated or otherwise made accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter to which the document relates prior to the critical date. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding both hair brush art and toothbrush art to be analogous to a claim to a hair brush) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. (citations omitted). The scope of the field of endeavor is a factual determination based on the scope of the application's written description and claims. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. slip op. at 27

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

    “There are two problems with Petitioner’s assertion. First, Petitioner has not shown a reason to combine Kogge with Huey and the ATM UNI Specification. Second, to the extent this reference is used to show the scope and content of the art at the time of the invention, Kogge makes it clear that parallelism and pipelining are different concepts that are “generally discernably different in their general approach.” Ex. 1033, 1. Petitioner has not explained how Kogge shows that putting packets through the pipeline without waiting for the previous packet to finish would be considered operating in parallel given that this reference distinguishes parallel operation from pipeline operation. Petitioner argued at the oral hearing that Patent Owner was advocating “a particular flavor of parallelism, as opposed to what’s understood by normal parallel pipelining.” Tr. 41:6–14. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant has explained what “normal parallel pipelining” is or what the basis is for us to define “normal parallel pipelining.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Huey to meet the limitation of performing at least two of said steps “in parallel using a pipeline.”” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,377,577 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,377,577
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont Hospital And Elekta, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00187 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 25–29 and 35–42 are unpatentable: claims 25–29 and 36–39 as obvious, and claims 35 and 40–42 as anticipated.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that Jaffray ’97 anticipates claims 35 and 40–42. Pet. 41–45 (citing Exs. 1003, 1004). For example, independent claim 35 recites “providing an existing radiation therapy system that comprises a radiation source that is supported on a support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a rotating gantry including an MV source. Independent claim 35 recites further “attaching an imager that does not directly 5 We refer to the original pagination of Jaffray ’97, and not Petitioner’s pagination. face said radiation source to said support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a kV imager that does not directly face the MV source. Petitioner provides similar analyses for claims 40–42. Patent Owner does not dispute any of the Petitioner’s assertions. 3. Conclusion After considering all of the above-referenced evidence and arguments anew, in light of the appropriate standard, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 35 and 40–42 are anticipated by Jaffray ’97.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: 1. determining the scope and content of the prior art, 2. ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, 3. resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and 4. considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address the challenges based on obviousness below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. Initially, we note that Patent Owner does not dispute that Span discloses the movable imager support system recited in claim 25. Nor does Patent Owner dispute that Span’s movable support system is a known improvement. Ex. 1005, 2:59– 63 (disclosing that due to the movable support structure, imaging equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24”). Instead, Patent Owner alleges that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the CBCT system of Jaffray ’97 to include the Span’s movable support system, for the known improvement of facilitating movement of a detector toward and away from a patient, because there is no need for such an improvement for a CBCT system. PO Resp. 14–20 (citing Exs. 1005, 1:12–21, 1:30–35, 2:35–36, 2:38–44, 2:48–55, 2:59–63, 3:2–4, Fig. 1a; 2080 ¶¶ 78–85, 100–103, 117). Patent Owner’s argument is misplaced, because Petitioner’s proffered modification is for the known improvement of movement generally, and not limited to the movement of a detector toward and away from a patient disclosed in Span. Specifically, Petitioner asserts: Jaffray ’97 does suggest that “important characteristics [of the imaging system] include . . . (iii) flexibility of use . . . and, (v) convenience.” (Id. at 5.) Span addresses this flexibility and convenience, explaining that, with the disclosed support structure, equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24 . . . .’’ (Ex. 1005 at 2:59–63.) Pet. 27–28. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419 (“The second error of the Court of Appeals lay in its assumption that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem.”). The Petition does not rely on the movement in Span being limited to “toward and away from a patient.” See generally Pet. 27–28.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’592 Patent would be a person with a graduate degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) in medical physics or a related field (e.g. Physics, Engineering) and three years of experience in radiation oncology physics, imaging science, and image processing related to radiation oncology applications beyond the completion date of their degree. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. The Declarants are in agreement that the person of ordinary skill in the art has a relatively high level of skill, and also are in agreement as to the basic qualifications for that person. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s Declarant’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason than for conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are, at best, limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,826,592 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,826,592

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.