• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-00992 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, and 17 are unpatentable; claims 3–6, 9, and 14 are not shown unpatentable, and claims 15 and 16 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience related to electronic consumer product design.” 3 The parties do not provide evidence or argument regarding objective indicia of nonobviousness. See, e.g., Pet. 9–93; Resp. 18–66. Pet. 6. Petitioner also asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Id. Dr. Wolfe’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years of professional experience with electro-mechanical control systems, or other similarly relevant industry experience.” Resp. 3. Patent Owner also asserts that “[a]dditional relevant industry experience may compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa.” Id. Dr. Goossen’s testimony supports Patent Owner’s assertions. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 16.” slip op. at 15

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

    “10. SUMMARY “[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, 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); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Above, we discussed issues concerning the “component” limitations in claims 1, 3, and 4 and an ambiguity in claim 4. See supra §§ III.C.4(c), III.C.5(c), III.C.6(c), III.C.7(c), III.C.8(c), III.C.9. We determine that no other claim language requires a discussion of scope or an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for proving unpatentability. D. Alleged Obviousness over Fukumoto: Claims 1–3, 7–9, and 17 Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 7–9, and 17 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Fukumoto. See Pet. 9–35; Reply 16–22. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions. See Resp. 18–27; Sur-reply 7–14. Below, we provide an overview of Fukumoto. Then, we consider the obviousness issues. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Petitioner that claims 1, 2, 7, and 17 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Fukumoto but disagree that claims 3, 8, and 9 are unpatentable based on Fukumoto.” slip op. at 44

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “2. MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION CLAIMING The patent statute provides that “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2006). The absence of the word “means” in a claim limitation creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112’s means-plus-function provision does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). When a claim limitation lacks the word “means,” a party may rebut the presumption that § 112’s means-plus-function provision does not apply by demonstrating that “the claim term fails to ‘recite[] sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (alteration by the court) (quoting Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves two steps: first, identify the claimed function or functions; and second, determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the patent’s specification corresponds to the claimed function or functions. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351; see Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For the second step, a person of ordinary skill in the art must “recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim.” All-Voice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The “duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience” of using means-plus-function claiming. B. Braun Med., Inc., v. Abbott Lab’ys, 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When a limitation recites two or more functions, the specification” slip op. at 18

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

    “Conclusion About Obviousness/Nonobviousness For the reasons discussed above, Fukumoto teaches claim 1’s subject” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 9,369,081 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,369,081
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “To obtain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application, Patent Owner bears the burden of producing evidence to establish where each limitation of the challenged claims is disclosed in a single priority application. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, 112 F.3d at 1564; NTP, 654 F.3d at 1276. Petitioner identifies limitations of the challenged claims that are missing from each individual German priority application. Pet. 39–42. Patent Owner responds with no evidence or arguments suggesting that the identified limitations are disclosed in a single application. Resp. 10–12. On this record, no challenged claim is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of any of the three German priority applications; therefore, Jarisch qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In other words, even if we accept that Dr. Howle has some experience designing medical devices and components, and that those experiences represent work designing products similar to mechanical beverage systems, Patent Owner fails to direct the Board to evidence sufficient to establish that this experience, in the aggregate, amounts to “at least five years” or involved “experience with sensors for recognizing identifiers.” Dec. 8 (adopting Patent Owner’s own proposed definition of ordinary skill in the art); see Sur-reply 3 (citing Ex. 1066, 34:16–35:9; Ex. 1067, 101:3–12, 102:30– 104:9; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 3, 4) (failing to establish adequately, if at all, how Dr. Howle’s qualifications include the requisite minimum five-year period of relevant design experience). Accordingly, we determine that Dr. Howle is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.12 Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Federal Circuit has made plain that, “[t]o offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case,” including the issue of patent “validity,” the “witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.” 12 To be clear, we are not saying that a witness supplying expert opinions must have satisfied the requirements of the level of ordinary skill in the art on or before the priority date of the challenged patent, which Patent Owner seems to understand. See Sur-reply 4–5. Instead, we evaluate whether Dr. Howle had at least the requisite qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art by the time he rendered his opinions. Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1627, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2024) (“[A]n expert can acquire the necessary skill later and develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill knew at the time of the invention,” however, where “the expert was not a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention may well be used during cross-examination to undermine the credibility of the expert.”); see id., slip op. at 5–6 (affirmatively quoting Kyocera). Id. (Board’s emphasis). “Without that skill, the witness’[s] opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Id. at 1377. “‘Admitting testimony from a person . . . with no skill in the pertinent art serves only to cause mischief and confuse the factfinder.’” That testimony would ‘amount[ ] to nothing more than advocacy from the witness stand.’” Id. (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Alternatively, even if we accept that Dr. Howle possesses “at least five years” of relevant design experience, on this record, we agree with Petitioner that his opinions are entitled to less weight than those of Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Jobin. Reply 27. Unlike Dr. Howle, Mr. Jobin is a designer by profession, with more than 30 years of industry experience. Reply 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–30). For example, Mr. Jobin designed a home-based beer dispensing system utilizing cartridge identification technologies. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Mr. Jobin also “has substantial experience with sensors for recognizing identifiers.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19; Ex. 1072, 3712–19, 67:22–70:19). Dr. Howle, by contrast, “has never designed a beverage machine.” Reply 22; see generally Sur-reply (declining to contest that assertion).13” slip op. at 14

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

    “In Petitioner’s contrary view, Jarisch teaches how to move a code in a centrifugal brewing system to the bottom of the flange and how to configure a light-conductive material so that the detector’s light source will reach the bottom of the flange. Pet. 45–46; Reply 21–22 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–195; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–84, Fig. 5). Although Figure 61 of Yoakim discloses a flare in its brewing chamber, bodily incorporation is not required, and we are directed to no persuasive argument or evidence that Yoakim could not be configured with a straight chamber, as depicted in Figure 5 of Jarisch. We credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to place the code at the bottom of the flange and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing. Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. For reasons explained above, we assign little or no weight to Dr. Howle’s conflicting testimony because he has little or no experience designing a mechanical beverage system or similar product. See supra 10– 16. Petitioner lays out persuasive reasons why Dr. Howle’s testimony, on this particular point, is “conclusory” and rests on “bodily incorporation” of the references. Reply 24; see id. at 22–24 (pointing out with particularity fundamental flaws in Dr. Howle’s opinions); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). In addition, Patent Owner contends that Yoakim requires that the capsule holder be capable of receiving a set of multiple volume capsules and that there is a “snug fit” to avoid “unbalances.” Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 205, 479, 484, 507, 512). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner does not explain adequately how the use of Jarisch’s “straight chamber” with a capsule holder that does not engage with the side wall of the capsule would allow insertion of multiple volume capsules or permit a “snug fit” in the modified device of Yoakim. Id. at 8–9. Patent Owner’s view that Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules which might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure is ineffective to undercut the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on this point. Petitioner is not seeking a bodily incorporation of Yoakim and Jarisch and, in any event, other embodiments of Yoakim do not require the type of flared capsule identified by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004, Fig. 63. Furthermore, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to design the chamber of Yoakim to allow reading of a barcode on the underside of the flange. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 187–195. With respect to the argument that the use of Jarisch’s design would not allow a snug fit, we are directed to no persuasive evidence that Jarisch’s lack of contact between the capsule side wall and the holder would render the device inoperable or less effective. Resp. 39–40; see Reply 22 (citing Ex. 2019, 36:18–37:6). Indeed, as Petitioner points out, Jarisch indicates that its device, including its capsule holding means, allows the capsule to be successfully driven in rotation. Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 23).” slip op. at 49

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

    “That argument is not persuasive. A reference need not identify or discuss another prior art patent or application in order for that reference to be deemed relevant or analogous art. Nor do we endeavor to determine why, or why not, a particular reference is discussed in a prior art reference. The analogous art inquiry focuses on reasonable pertinence and involves assessing the similarities between the claimed invention and the prior art, including the problems addressed and the closeness of the subject matter, as viewed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relevant analysis focuses on comparing the disclosed embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention to the disclosures of the prior art). Against that backdrop, we reject Patent Owner’s suggestion that the inquiry involves whether the inventors of Jarisch saw a need to discuss Yoakim’s disclosure in Jarisch’s priority document.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,994,923 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,994,923
• Viking Drill & Tool, Inc. v. Hongjia WangAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00474 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12–15, 18, 19, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhou, Bannister, Gentry, and Durfee; the Board did not reach the additional Welty-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “known that a spiral flute helps to lift swarf away from the cutting surface. Pet. 67 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 201–202). The testimony of Petitioner’s expert states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “the spiral shape of the flute side walls was desirable since it helps to lift chips, or swarf, away from the cutting surface and evacuate it from the hole being cut.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 202. This makes intuitive sense, as a wall perpendicular to the surface would push accumulated chips along, whereas the wedge shape of the spiral will lift them away from the cutting surface. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Zhou’s flute to arrange the cutting edges such that they, as a whole, have a spiral shape in order to achieve these chip-lifting benefits. Thus, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention had a reason to include the known feature of cutting tips that spiraled around the cone portion, in order to achieve the benefit of providing better chip removal.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A [person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)] with respect to the ’583 patent would have been an individual educated in mechanical engineering with a bachelor’s degree and at least one or two years of experience in the development of drill bits, or an associate’s degree and at least five years of experience in the development of drill bits. A POSA would typically work in a team with machinists and would be aware of developments in the field of machine tools, particularly drill bits, for example by attending trade shows, and by reading patents and trade journals.” slip op. at 17

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

    “formed sequentially and spirally on a cone portion exterior” of the twist drill. The parties agreed to construe the cutting blade groups being “formed spirally” as meaning that the cutting blade groups are slanted with respect to the rotational axis, i.e., are not perpendicular to the rotational axis. The parties have agreed that being “formed spirally” is met by axial relief. Pet. 23; Tr. 77:9–12. We adopted this construction. slip op. at 18

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

    “2. Construction of Remaining Terms We determine that no further terms require construction. 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 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,007,583 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,007,583
• Medit Corporation v. 3shape A/SInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 28, 2024 · IPR2023-01315 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12–17 on all asserted grounds because the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For institution, “[t]he ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard is a somewhat flexible standard that allows the Board room to exercise judgment.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 53 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.” slip op. at 15

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

    “C. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, we interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundInstituted

    “We understand Petitioner to rely on an inherent disclosure of the certainty score in contending that Korten anticipates claim 1. See, e.g., ABS Glob., Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLC, 84 F.4th 1034, 1042–43 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“A claim is anticipated if ‘each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.’” (emphasis added). And inherency is a high standard. See, e.g., Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.”). We determine, on the limited record before us, that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing for institution that a certainty score would naturally flow from Korten’s validity and error determinations. Accordingly, upon review of the information in the Petition and corresponding evidence, including Patent Owner’s counter arguments, we determine Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated, at this stage of the proceeding, that Korten discloses the subject matter of limitation 1[c].” slip op. at 24

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

    “teachings of Korten with either Lehmann I or Lehmann II. Prelim. Resp. 22–26, 29 (referencing arguments for Ground 2), 35–36 (referencing arguments for Ground 2 directed to motivation to combine references). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the technology of Korten does not overlap with Lehmann II. Id. at 23. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner and Dr. Foroosh fail to address how a person having ordinary skill in the art could have successfully combined the two-dimensional imaging of Lehmann II with the three-dimensional imaging of Korten. See id.; see, e.g., Pet. 31 (“Lehmann II is directed towards the analysis of [two-dimensional] images, whereas Korten is directed towards rendering and displaying [three-dimensional] models.”). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should have been aware of this issue given the Board’s prior decision denying institution in IPR2023-00400. Prelim. Resp. 23. Patent Owner then itemizes a list of technical challenges with respect to combining a two-dimensional system with a three-dimensional system. Id. at 24. These challenges include that Petitioner does not explain “how one might associate a Z-coordinate of Korten with the color data obtained by the Lehmann II camera,” how a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have Korten’s processor align the [two-dimensional] color image areas obtained by the Lehmann II camera with the [three-dimensional] entity previously created by Korten, and then provide color values to the entity at aligned X-Y-Z points,” and “how to implement Lehmann II’s [two-dimensional] image into Korten’s [three-dimensional] model.” Id.; see also id. at 24–26 (discussing difficulties in using spectrophotometers to collect color data and associating two-dimensional color data with three-dimensional representations). Petitioner, concentrating on Lehmann II’s best fit technology, contends that “[a]lthough Lehmann II is directed towards the analysis of [two-dimensional] images, whereas Korten is directed towards rendering and displaying [three-dimensional] models, this difference is immaterial as it relates to determining the certainty score of the selected tooth shade value.” Pet. 31 (referencing Ex. 1015 ¶ 141); cf. Ex. 1015 ¶ 141 (providing the same testimony as is in the Petition). We have reviewed Patent Owner’s argument and determine, on the limited record before us, that Patent Owner identifies a weakness in Petitioner’s position. Petitioner’s contentions concerning motivation to combine Korten and Lehmann II seem to focus on a motivation for using Lehmann’s teachings of the subject matter of limitation 1[c], and does not address Petitioner’s reliance on Lehmann II for the subject matter of limitation 1[b], which recites the step of “determining a tooth shade value for at least one point on the tooth based on the texture data of the corresponding point of the digital 3D representation and on known texture values of one or more reference tooth shade values.” See Pet. 30 (mapping the requirements of limitation 1[b] to disclosures in Lehmann II); Ex. 1001, 21:33–37 (providing limitation 1[b]). Limitation 1[b] seems to require implementing teachings concerning two-dimensional color data from Lehmann II with three-dimensional color data collected at the step of limitation 1[a] by Korten’s system. As such, Petitioner’s reasoning may not be adequately supported by a rational underpinning. Cf. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (stating that, to facilitate the analysis of an obviousness position, the proponent should provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). The parties may develop the record concerning this dispute at trial.” slip op. at 30

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,695,151
• Advanced Lighting Concepts LLC v. Mate LLC.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01257 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3, 5, 7, 13, 15, or 21 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition 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; see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute inter partes review of” slip op. at 2

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

    “art depicted in Figure 5 (relied upon for claim element 1(b)) either relates to or can be combined with Shteynberg’s discussion of its Figure 10 embodiment depicting capacitor 345 (relied upon for claim element 1(d)). For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, it “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For example, in Net MoneyIN, the Federal Circuit held that an “Internet payment system” was not anticipated by a prior art reference that disclosed all the components of the invention, because the reference disclosed two separate payment protocols, each of which contained only a subset of the components claimed in the patent at issue. Id. at 1371. “[T]he [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.” Id. at 1371 (citation omitted). Here, Petitioner relies upon two disparate disclosures without any indication as to how these disclosures could be combined. Second, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that capacitor 345 functions as an inrush current limit or that Shteynberg discloses a “power factor correction (PFC) boost connected to the inrush current limit” as required by claim element 1(d). Petitioner and its declarant have clearly stated that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would readily understand that using a resistor in series with a capacitor to limit inrush current as described in Shteynberg is analogous to the inrush current limit of the ‘446 [p]atent.” Pet. 17 (emphasis added); Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. Neither Petitioner nor its declarant make any persuasive argument that a capacitor only, such as capacitor 345, can constitute an inrush current limit. Indeed, Mr. McAlexander provides no testimony that a capacitor alone can constitute an inrush current limit, let alone that Shteynberg discloses an inrush current limit that is connected to power factor correction (PFC) boost as required by claim element 1(d). See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–61 (providing testimony that Shteynberg anticipates claim 1 but not discussing the inrush current limit of claim element 1(d)). Indeed, Petitioner does not include any citations to Mr. McAlexander’s declaration to support its contention that Shteynberg discloses an inrush current limit as required by claim element 1(d). See Pet. 19–22. Thus, Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence or argument that Shteynberg’s Figure 10 discloses an inrush current limit, let alone an inrush current limit that is connected to a power factor correction (PFC) boost. As noted above, Petitioner has provided no persuasive argument as to how Shteynberg’s disclosures regarding its discussion of the resistor in series with a capacitor shown in prior art Figure 5 can be combined with Shteynberg’s disclosures regarding its inventive embodiment of Figure 10. Thus, we find that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Shteynberg discloses the recited inrush current limit as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See 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 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. McAlexander, testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which the ’446 patent pertains, would have “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field and significant experience with power regulation devices, like LED drivers and dimmers.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 31. Patent Owner, having waived its Preliminary Response, does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. Paper 7. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’601 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of this Decision, we apply Mr. McAlexander’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,525,446
• Advanced Lighting Concepts LLC v. Mate LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01259 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, or 13 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To institute inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). Upon considering the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “comports with the standard for anticipation. Under the applicable standard for anticipation, neither Petitioner nor its declarant provides persuasive analysis that would show that one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from Zudrell-Koch that its input voltage pin discloses the claimed power limit. Eli Lilly, 849 F.3d at 1074–1075. Mr. McAlexander testifies: “As discussed above, a POSITA would understand that the input voltage pin is the power limiter that receives power from the power circuit.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Mr. McAlexander cites no evidence in paragraph 58. Regarding the “As discussed above” portion of paragraph 58, the only previous paragraph cited by Petitioner in connection with its limitation 1(b) argument is paragraph 57, in which Mr. McAlexander states that “IC power-supply pins denote voltage and current supply terminals in electric, electronics engineering, and in integrated circuit design.” Id. ¶ 57. Mr. McAlexander, however, provides no citation in support of this statement and does not provide any clarification if or how IC power-supply pins relate to the input voltage pin discussed in Zudrell-Koch. Id. The only support in paragraph 57 is a summary of a short website page titled “Digital Input,” which provides: “Digital input is where a pin will detect the presence of a voltage level that is either ‘high’ or ‘low,’” and which discusses the topic of” slip op. at 15

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

    “comports with the standard for anticipation. Under the applicable standard for anticipation, neither Petitioner nor its declarant provides persuasive analysis that would show that one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from Zudrell-Koch that its input voltage pin discloses the claimed power limit. Eli Lilly, 849 F.3d at 1074–1075. Mr. McAlexander testifies: “As discussed above, a POSITA would understand that the input voltage pin is the power limiter that receives power from the power circuit.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Mr. McAlexander cites no evidence in paragraph 58. Regarding the “As discussed above” portion of paragraph 58, the only previous paragraph cited by Petitioner in connection with its limitation 1(b) argument is paragraph 57, in which Mr. McAlexander states that “IC power-supply pins denote voltage and current supply terminals in electric, electronics engineering, and in integrated circuit design.” Id. ¶ 57. Mr. McAlexander, however, provides no citation in support of this statement and does not provide any clarification if or how IC power-supply pins relate to the input voltage pin discussed in Zudrell-Koch. Id. The only support in paragraph 57 is a summary of a short website page titled “Digital Input,” which provides: “Digital input is where a pin will detect the presence of a voltage level that is either ‘high’ or ‘low,’” and which discusses the topic of” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s obviousness grounds do not cure the deficiency in Petitioner’s argument and evidence about whether Zudrell-Koch discloses every element of claim 1. Here, in its obviousness grounds, Petitioner relies on the same reasoning as it presents for anticipation and has not provided any argument or evidence as to why Zudrell-Koch might disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 1 under an obviousness standard. Nor do Petitioner’s arguments present any reasoning as to why Zhdanau or Veskovic might disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 1 under an obviousness standard. On this record, Petitioner’s obviousness arguments fail to meet Petitioner’s burden of demonstrating that the prior art discloses or suggests every element of the challenged claims. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing obviousness of claims 12 and 13 by Zudrell-Koch, Zhdanau, and Veskovic.” slip op. at 27

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,591,713
• Advanced Lighting Concepts LLC v. Mate LLC.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01264 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (permitting the Board to institute trial on behalf of the Director). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we decline to institute inter partes review on any of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

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

    “described limits current to an amount that is proportional to the amount of the resistance.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Consistent with Shteynberg’s disclosure, Mr. McAlexander makes it clear that it is the resistor that limits the flow of current, not a capacitor. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. McAlexander identifies a resistor in Shteynberg’s current regulator or switching power supply that limits the inrush current. Cf. Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1369. Also, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s “analogous to” argument comports with the standard for anticipation. Under the applicable standard for anticipation, neither Petitioner nor its declarant provides persuasive analysis that would show that one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from Shteynberg that its capacitor 345 is the claimed inrush current limit. Cf. Eli Lilly & Co. v. L.A. Biomedical Research Inst., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–1075 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference”). For these reasons we find that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Shteynberg discloses a power circuit that includes an inrush limit as recited in limitations 1(a) and 1(b).” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “F. Ground 3: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 6, 8, 9, 19, and 20 over Shteynberg and Gandhi Petitioner contends that claims 6, 8, 9, 19, and 20, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are rendered obvious by the combination of Shteynberg and Gandhi. Pet. 53–60. We discern nothing in Petitioner’s analysis directed to these dependent claims, much less any analysis directed to Gandhi’s teachings, that remedies the deficiencies we identify for claim 1. Accordingly, we determine that that the information in the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 6, 8, 9, 19, and 20 would have been unpatentable as obvious over Shteynberg and Gandhi, for at least the reason that these claims depend from a claim that is not proven unpatentable.” slip op. at 28

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Also, we afford little weight to Mr. McAlexander’s verbatim testimony, because he does not provide any basis for his opinion, nor does he provide any evidence in support of his opinion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) 8 The Petition references paragraph 63 of Mr. McAlexander’s Declaration, but this language corresponds to paragraph 65. (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (according “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s conclusory assertions without additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,078,310
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00993 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–9, 11, 14–17, 19, and 20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–9, 11, 14–17, 19, and 20 of the ’830 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–9, 11, 14–17, 19, and 20 of the ’830 patent on all asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] at the critical time “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience related to electronic consumer product design [and the] POSITA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent Owner states that its analysis has been made under this proposed definition and “would not change if minor variations were made to it.” Prelim. Resp. 3. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached

    “invokes § 112, paragraph 6, involves a three-part inquiry: (1) there is a generic placeholder that substitutes for the term “means”; (2) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (3) the limitation does not include the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Tri-Med v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1303–04 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the court must “determine whether the claim nevertheless recites sufficient structure for performing the . . . function to take it outside the bounds of” § 112, paragraph 6).” slip op. at 8

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

    “electromagnetic coil oscillation sufficiently teaches the claimed driving component. Infra at II(D)(2)(a). Because Petitioner’s assertions and our determination would be unaffected by its proposed construction, we need not construe this term for purposes of institution. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). With respect to limitation [1f], a “control component that controls supply of power from the power supply to the driving component to cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency and an amplitude specified by one or more stored values,” Petitioner argues that it should be construed as a means (component) having a function (to control supply of power from the power supply to the driving component to cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency and an amplitude specified by one or more stored values). In our analysis, we determine limitation [1f] to be taught by Petitioner’s assertions under its alternate non-means-plus-function construction. For this reason, and because Petitioner has not provided sufficient analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6, we need not construe limitation [1f] for purposes of institution. Petitioner also argues that dependent claim 4 contains the terms “the one or more operational control outputs of the control component,” “the sensors,” and “the one or more sensors,” that lack antecedent basis in claim 1 from which it depends, and therefore proposes two constructions. Pet. 9. However, Petitioner argues that these limitations are taught by its asserted combination of references under either construction. Id. at 51. We Therefore, construction is not required at this stage of the proceeding. Whether § 112’s means-plus-function provision applies to those limitations is better resolved at trial on a more developed record.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,941,830
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01025 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the ’308 PGPub was not prior art; Petitioner therefore did not show claims 1–20 were anticipated.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–20 of the ’830 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] at the critical time “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience related to electronic consumer product design [and the] POSITA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent Owner states that its analysis has been made under this proposed definition and “would not change if minor variations were made to it.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner. As Petitioner admits, each non- provisional parent application in the chain describes two types of vibration modules: a “linear” and a “linear-resonant” vibration module. Pet. 10–14. Each non-provisional ancestor application, including the ’249 application that matured into the ’830 patent, has “substantively identical specification[s].” Id. at 15. Each application describes multiple embodiments of the linear-resonant vibration module, some of which are not exclusively linear. SeeEx. 1033 ¶¶ 39–48; Ex. 1001, 9:20–10:65. For example, Patent Owner points to the arcuate motion (shown by the curved arrows labeled “motion of magnet”) in Figure 15, in which a “spring-like member 1502 is clamped at one end . . . and induced to vibrate.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 45; Ex. 1001, 10:26–34. Additionally, the embodiment of Figure 12 provides for oscillation “both in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the chamber as well as linearly oscillating the direction of the chamber.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 41 (emphasis added); Ex. 1001, 9:46–49. Thus, the ’607 application has clear written description for vibration modules that are not limited to solely “linear” vibration. We further agree that the term “oscillate” in the claims possesses written description in the non-provisional ancestor specifications. The above-described embodiments having more complex oscillation, such as linear plus rotational oscillation or linear-arcuate oscillation, provide the requisite support. As for the change in the language of the claims from prior applications, the above-described embodiments might reasonably be covered by the ’830 patent claims’ recitation of “moveable component to oscillate,” but perhaps might not be considered to be covered by the prior application claims’ recitation of “moveable component in each of two opposite directions.” Regardless, the description in the above-described embodiments provides sufficient support for the ’830 patent claims, and it is not affected or negated by the scope of the claims in those prior applications. Thus, we do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that the alterations in the claim language indicate that the claim scope of the ’830 patent is not described in the earlier non-provisional applications such that any claim of the ’830 patent cannot obtain the benefit of the earlier filing date of those applications.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “b) Determination For the above-described reasons, Patent Owner has sufficiently shown that the common disclosures of the parent and grandparent nonprovisional applications lack written description for the “vibration module” in the claims of the ’830 patent. Consequently, we determine that the record shows that the ’308 PGPub is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1). For that reason, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that any of the claims of the ’830 patent are anticipated by the ’308 PGPub.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,941,830
• Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Quantum Imaging LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00996 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–12, and 18 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2022); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’165 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–12, and 18) of the ’165 patent, based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “7. Summary and conclusion Based on our holistic view of the Fintiv factors, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny the Petition. As discussed above, only factor 5 weighs in favor of discretionary denial, factor 1 is neutral, and factors 2, 3, and 4 weigh, in varying degrees, against discretionary denial of institution, with factors 2 and 3 being the most compelling factors. Given that the trial date has already been delayed to just four months prior to the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in this case, and that the current proposed scheduling order pushes significant discovery efforts well into 2024, the evidence of record does not favor exercising our discretion to deny institution of this inter partes review.” slip op. at 49

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 43). Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a POSITA.” Prelim. Resp. 6. Based on this record, and because there is no dispute, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’165 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the record before us at this early stage of the proceeding, and because there is no actual dispute as to the meaning of these or apparently any claim terms, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any particular claim term. And, like the parties, for purposes of this Decision we adopt, and where appropriate refer to the District Court’s claim constructions in Niantic. Apart from this, on this early record we determine that we need not further expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,991,165

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.