• Ironsource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2023 · PGR2022-00053 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–22 under § 101, § 102(a) over Pasha, and § 103 over Pasha, Pasha and Yamada, and Pasha and Molinet.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted unless it is determined that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded that the Petition demonstrates it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Neither of those exceptions apply here, and for the reasons below, we find the plain and ordinary meaning of “invoke” or “invoking” to be to call or activate, as proposed by Petitioner. slip op. at 11

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

    “to mean “to shift user interaction on the device,” and we disagree with Patent Owner that the claim term requires the shifting to take place without requiring a user interaction. We begin with the language of the independent claims. Claim 1 recites “redirect said device to an app store for downloading said first software application on said device.” Ex. 1001, 21:38–40. The claim language, therefore, does not recite any requirement relating to user interaction during the redirect.” slip op. at 15

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

    “3. Other Claim Terms We determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other terms in order to determine whether to institute. The parties are reminded claim terms will be based on the complete record developed during trial.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Enfish · Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,157,256
• Ironsource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · PGR2021-00096 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend proposing claims 19–36 is denied, and the parties’ motions to exclude are denied in part and granted in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'IneligibleUnpatentable

    “3. Analysis On the full record developed during trial, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner’s analysis of the independent claims described above only loosely corresponds to the actual limitations recited in the claim. The Federal Circuit has “cautioned that courts ‘must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims’ by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Petitioner’s analysis of the claim limitations appears to do. Petitioner’s argument that “the essence of all the claims” is captured by a single claim element (f3) not only ignores that that limitation recites performing two specific software tasks simultaneously—which we are not persuaded is an abstract idea—but also asks us to disregard multiple technical aspects recited in the claims, such as identifying a link, determining whether an installation client is available on the device, invoking the installation client, and redirecting to the device an app store. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:6–35. That is, under Step 2A of the Guidance, we are neither persuaded that limitation f3, which Petitioner points us to, recites an abstract idea (Prong 1), nor that the other limitations recited in the independent claims fail to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2). Petitioner characterizes the claims as directed to multitasking, which Petitioner describes as representing a basic task in organizing human activity. Pet. 30. Although the Guidance recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity, including certain activity between a person and a computer, as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we are not persuaded that the claims here fall within the scope of such activity. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships as organizing human activity); October 2019 Update at 5 (“this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings . . . , and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances”). The claimed invention may result in multitasking on the device, but the claims are directed to downloading and installing an application in the background instead of directing the user to an application, and do not recite an abstract idea. And although that process does result in improving user experience, the claims recite more than that mere result; they recite specific steps—invoking, without exiting the foreground software application, the installation client for downloading and installing applications on the device to run in the background—that accomplish the desired result. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding a method that employs a new kind of file in a computer security system directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security writ large). Petitioner thus fails to establish sufficiently that the claims are directed patent ineligible subject matter under Step 2A of the Guidance. We also agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims are somewhat similar to those that the Federal Circuit held patentable in DDR Holdings. The claims there were directed to a method of generating a composite webpage that combined visual elements of a host website with content from a third-party, e.g., by combining the logo, background color, and fonts of the host website with product information from a merchant. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1248. When a user clicked on a link on the host website, the system would construct the composite web page comprising a look and feel description from the host website along with content based on product information from the merchant’s product catalog. Id. at 1250. The court held those claims were not directed at an abstract idea because they addressed the problem of retaining website visitors that, absent the claimed invention, would be instantly transported away from a host’s website after clicking on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink. Id. at 1257.” slip op. at 29

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

    “1. Independent Claim 1 a) “A mobile device configured for running software applications, comprising:” Petitioner contends that Pasha discloses computer system 600, which” slip op. at 38

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “4. Support in the Original Disclosure A motion to amend may not present substitute claims that introduce new subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) (“A motion to amend may be denied where . . . [t]he amendment seeks . . . introduce new subject matter.”). “Normally, a claim element without support in the original disclosure (i.e., the application as originally filed) merits a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description support.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15, 7. Accordingly, a motion to amend must set forth written description support in the originally filed disclosure of the subject patent for each proposed substitute claim.” Id.” slip op. at 74

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part

    “CTPG at 73–74. Accordingly, Rule 42.23(b) prohibits filing of new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness with a sur-reply. Patent Owner does not argue that the opinions presented in paragraphs 4–13 of Dr. Mao’s declaration are within the scope of §42.23(b). See generally PO MTE Opp. Nor do we find it in the interests of justice to allow this evidence in the case file. Accordingly, we grant in part Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude paragraphs 4–13 of Exhibit 2013 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).22” slip op. at 90

  Patent outcomesUS 10,782,951 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,782,951
• Intel Corporation / Xilinx, Inc. v. FG SRC LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 1, 2022 · IPR2020-01449 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable over the stated prior-art combinations; the Revised Motion to Amend proposing substitute claims 20–38 is denied for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityOther

    “a legal conclusion based on underlying fact findings.” Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 772. “A reference is considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id. (citing Jazz, 895 F.3d at 1355– 1356). “If accessibility is proved, there is no requirement to show that particular members of the public actually received the information.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsOther

    “6. Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness Because the parties refer to the claims collectively in addressing” slip op. at 72

  • 112 supportDenied

    “specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims.” Id. at 1356. Accordingly, the issue is whether Patent Owner has shown that the specification of the ’867 patent provides a “reason to exclude” reconfigurable processors that are integrated with, or comprise a conventional microprocessor.” slip op. at 87

  Patent outcomesUS 7,149,867 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,149,867
• Ironsource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2022 · PGR2021-00096 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1–18 under § 101, claims 1, 3–12, and 14–18 under § 102(a) over Pasha, and the listed § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted unless it is determined that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded that the Petition presents information demonstrating it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “For the purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner. Figure 7 of the ’951 patent shows the Downloader & Installer Module as a module within the “installation client,” not as the installation client itself. Ex. 1001, 14:4–45 (discussing “installation client 700” and its various modules); Fig. 7 (showing Download & Installer 720 as part of Installation Client 700). The ’951 patent states: Installation client 700 is represented as several modules performing separate functions. The division of functionality demonstrated in FIG. 7 is illustrative, and not intended to be limiting. Other embodiments of an installation client may organize the various functions performed by the installation client 700 in a different manner. Id. at 14:6–12. Accordingly, the proper construction of the term “installation client” does not limit the number or arrangement of components” slip op. at 11

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s analysis of the independent claims described above only loosely corresponds to the actual limitations recited in the claim. The Federal Circuit has “cautioned that courts ‘must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims’ by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). But “failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims” is what Petitioner’s analysis of the claim limitations appears to do. Petitioner’s argument that “the essence of all the claims” is captured by a single claim element not only ignores that that limitation recites installing software, which we are not persuaded is an abstract idea, but also asks us to disregard multiple technical aspects recited in the claims, such as identifying a link, determining whether an installation client is available on the device, invoking the installation client, and redirecting to the device an app store. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:6–35. Nor are we persuaded by Petitioner’s characterization of the claims as directed to multitasking, which Petitioner characterizes as representing a basic task in organizing human activity. Pet. 30. Although the Guidance recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity, including certain activity between a person and a computer, as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we are not persuaded that the claims here fall within the scope of such activity. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships as organizing human activity); October 2019 Update at 5 (“this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances”). Although the claimed invention may result in multitasking on the device, the claims are directed to downloading and installing an application in the background instead of directing the user to an app store, thereby maintaining user experience with the foreground application, and do not recite an abstract idea. And although that process does result in improving user experience, the claims recite more than that mere result; they recite specific steps— invoking, without exiting the foreground software application, the installation client for downloading and installing applications on the device to run in the background—that accomplish the desired result. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding a method that employs a new kind of file in a computer security system directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security writ large); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding claims that address the problem of retaining website visitors after clicking on an advertisement hyperlink not directed to an abstract idea). Accordingly, based on the current record, we question whether Petitioner establishes sufficiently that the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the Guidance. Nevertheless, because Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 (see infra §§ III.F–I), we include this ground in the instituted post-grant review. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 17

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

    “As discussed above (supra Section II.C.1), at this preliminary stage, we do not construe “installation client” so narrowly as to limit the number or arrangement of components required to meet that claim element. Also, as discussed above (id.), the specification of the ’951 patent supports that multiple modules performing separate functions may comprise the installation client. Therefore, based on our review and consideration of the current record, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Pasha fails to disclose the claimed installation client. Petitioner’s arguments are inconsistent across the Petition. The Petition clearly alleges that “the App Manager 180 and Installer 182 disclose the claimed ‘installation client for downloading and installing applications on said device.’” Pet. 58. Petitioner’s description of Pasha’s App Manager is consistent with Pasha’s disclosure itself. For example, although Pasha discloses that “the host application 132 may use an App Manager component 180 and an Installer component 182,” it also states that “[t]he App Manager 180 may control portions of the application download and install process.” Ex. 1003, 17:22–26; Pet. 38. Pasha further discloses that “[t]he App Manager 180 [itself] may perform at least a portion of one or more of the steps 310–350 of FIG. 3,” i.e., including the step of “[i]nstalling the downloadable application on the computer system from the application package by executing program code having permission to install applications.” Ex. 1003, 17:35–36, Fig. 3. Patent Owner’s argument that Pasha’s “App Manager does not have the role of installing software applications,” is therefore contrary to Pasha’s disclosure. Also, Petitioner’s reasoning and evidentiary underpinnings here are based not so much on modifying Pasha, as Patent Owner suggests, as explaining how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Pasha’s disclosure. Between its App Manager and Installer, Pasha discloses the claimed functionality of the “installation client,” but, similar to the ’951 patent, Pasha teaches flexibility between the use of those components to implement the claimed functionality. For the purposes of institution, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner fails to meet its threshold burden of showing anticipation under Net MoneyIN. See, e.g., Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that a reference need not always as it teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination). Based on our review of the current record, we therefore determine that the information presented supports sufficiently, for the purpose of institution, Petitioner’s assertion that Pasha discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Enfish · Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,782,951
• Microsoft Corporation / Apple Inc. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2020 · IPR2020-00315 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over TR25.835 and Abrol because the combined teachings establish each challenged limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Rodermund’s testimony is insufficient because he did not testify, or provide documentary evidence, that email notifications were provided of the actual upload of TR25.835 to the 3GPP server. Id. Here, Mr. Rodermund’s testimony sufficiently demonstrates his personal knowledge of the business practices of 3GPP for him to testify regarding such practices. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 13. He explains the general practice of emailing persons having ordinary skill in the art as soon as new or additional documents are uploaded to 3GPP’s ftp server. Id. ¶ 19.8 We give substantial weight to Mr. Rodermund’s testimony that persons having ordinary skill in the art were notified by email as soon as new documents, like TR25.835, were uploaded to 3GPP’s ftp server based on his personal knowledge of the business practices of 3GPP. Id.; see Hall, 781 F.2d at 899 (accepting evidence regarding the general library procedure for cataloging as probative value of routine business practice to show the performance of the specific act of cataloging a document). In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Evidence of routine business practice can be sufficient to prove that a reference was made [publicly] accessible.”).” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioners are not prohibited from relying on new evidence and arguments in a reply, if the evidence and arguments are responsive to arguments made in a patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. 42.23(b); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“Consolidated Practice Guide”) 73 (Nov. 2019)9; Hulu, LLC. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 15 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (“For example, if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication”). Here, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and new evidence in connection with the Petitioner Reply are responsive to Patent Owner’s challenges to TR25.835’s status as a printed publication.” slip op. at 16

  • ExcludeDenied

    “Next, Patent Owner makes several evidentiary objections to Petitioner’s Reply exhibits. Sur-reply 2, 12–13. A party wishing to challenge the admissibility of evidence “must file any objections within five business days of service of evidence to which the objection is directed.” Consolidated Practice Guide 78–79 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)). Patent Owner, however, did not file any objections within five business days of service of the Reply evidence. Tr. 19:25–20:7. Rather, Patent Owner, for the first time, presents its evidentiary objections in connection with its Sur-reply. By disregarding the rules, Patent Owner prevented Petitioner from serving supplemental evidence, and filing an opposition to a motion to exclude as permitted. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(b)(2), 42.64(c); Paper 8, 8–9. Patent Owner’s evidentiary objections, therefore, are not timely and we do not, nor need not, consider them.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not provide its own assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but argues that the Petition fails to link the subject matter of hybrid ARQ methods to the identified levels of education and industry experience proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner has failed to show that such a linkage is necessary. Rather, in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we consider several factors, such as the type of problems encountered in the art and prior art solutions to those problems, as well as education and industry experience. Here, we agree with Petitioner and find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known of the hybrid ARQ methods described in the ’917 patent and closely followed ARQ developments by 3GPP and other network standardization groups. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:5–62, 5:13–36). Moreover, we adopt Dr. Bims’s assessment of a person with ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’917 patent and the asserted prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 27. We further note that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding the Board may omit specific findings as to the level of ordinary skill in the art “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”).” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,075,917 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,075,917
• Microsoft Corporation / Apple Inc. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2020 · IPR2020-00224 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over TR25.835 and Abrol because the combined teachings establish each challenged limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not provide its own assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but argues that the Petition fails to link the subject matter of hybrid ARQ methods to the identified levels of education and industry experience proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner has failed to show that such a linkage is necessary. Rather, in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we consider several factors, such as the type of problems encountered in the art and prior art solutions to those problems, as well as education and industry experience. Here, we agree with Petitioner and find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known of the hybrid ARQ methods described in the ’917 patent and closely followed ARQ developments by 3GPP and other network standardization groups. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:5–62, 5:13–36). Moreover, we adopt Dr. Bims’s assessment of a person with ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’917 patent and the asserted prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 27. We further note that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding the Board may omit specific findings as to the level of ordinary skill in the art “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “2018, “[claims] of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For purposes of this decision, we need not expressly construe any claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 9, and 10 over TR25.825 and Abrol” slip op. at 8

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,075,917 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,075,917
• Microsoft Corporation / Apple Inc. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2020 · IPR2019-00973 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over TR25.835 and Abrol.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Harry Bims, who testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the” slip op. at 6

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

    “2018, “[claims] of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For purposes of this decision, we need not expressly construe any claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 9, and 10 over TR25.825 and Abrol” slip op. at 8

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

    “Rodermund’s testimony is insufficient because he did not testify, or provide documentary evidence, that email notifications were provided of the actual upload of TR25.835 to the 3GPP server. Id. Here, Mr. Rodermund’s testimony sufficiently demonstrates his personal knowledge of the business practices of 3GPP for him to testify regarding such practices. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 13. He explains the general practice of emailing persons having ordinary skill in the art as soon as new or additional documents are uploaded to 3GPP’s ftp server. Id. ¶ 19.8 We give substantial weight to Mr. Rodermund’s testimony that persons having ordinary skill in the art were notified by email as soon as new documents, like TR25.835, were uploaded to 3GPP’s ftp server based on his personal knowledge of the business practices of 3GPP. Id.; see Hall, 781 F.2d at 899 (accepting evidence regarding the general library procedure for cataloging as probative value of routine business practice to show the performance of the specific act of cataloging a document). In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Evidence of routine business practice can be sufficient to prove that a reference was made [publicly] accessible.”).” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioners are not prohibited from relying on new evidence and arguments in a reply, if the evidence and arguments are responsive to arguments made in a patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. 42.23(b); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“Consolidated Practice Guide”) 73 (Nov. 2019)9; Hulu, LLC. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 15 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (“For example, if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication”). Here, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and new evidence in connection with the Petitioner Reply are responsive to Patent Owner’s challenges to TR25.835’s status as a printed publication.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,075,917 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,075,917
• Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00043 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing but denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “We have considered Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and, for the reasons set forth below, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, but we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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.” slip op. at 3

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “III. DISCUSSION OF THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING On May 4, 2020, we issued our Decision denying institution of inter partes review based upon: (1) the advanced stage of the California District Court proceeding; (2) the investment of time and resources by the District Court and the parties in the California District Court proceeding; (3) overlap in the invalidity theories that Petitioner is pursuing here and in the California District Court proceeding; and (4) overlap in the claims challenged in the California District Court proceeding. Inst. Dec. 6–12. In the Decision, we did not reach any of the ten substantive grounds for patentability. See generally Inst. Dec. Rather, the denial of institution was solely based on our findings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id.” slip op. at 4

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and 37 C.F.R. §42.4. Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2012); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”) For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the arguments and evidence of record, we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review.7” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenDenied

    “The petition must identify with particularity each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) (content of petitions); 37 C.F.R. 42.104 (content of petition). Petitioner’s conclusory statements, without more, are irreparably lacking in detail. Petitioner does not provide any analysis to support the assertion of obviousness over Oki. In fact, Petitioner instead asserts that Oki discloses all of the limitations in each of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 15, 16, and 18, so it is unclear what modification, if any, is required to Oki, or even the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. E.g., Pet. 28– 33. Petitioner does not clearly point out the differences between the claimed invention and Oki. Nor does Petitioner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed subject matter obvious in spite of those differences. Petitioner has not provided sufficient reasoning or facts on which to base a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, in light of Oki’s disclosure, to modify Oki to meet the claim limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on this ground of unpatentability.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,223,117
• Axis Communications AB v. Avigilon Patent Holding 1 CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01268 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 were not shown unpatentable because Okonnen did not disclose programming verification, and the Board found insufficient reason to combine Okonnen, Creamer, and Jacobson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “on this issue, we determine that Dr. Jeffay’s testimony is entitled to less weight than Dr. Almeroth’s because Dr. Jeffay’s testimony is insufficiently supported by the evidence and in certain instances Dr. Jeffay appears to use the terms “authenticate” and “verify” interchangeably. First, Dr. Jeffay cites to Okonnen’s explicit disclosure of two methods of using a key to authenticate an update. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 25 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:9–11, 4:29– 30, 7:61–67); Ex. 1008 ¶ 194. Dr. Jeffay further notes that “Okonnen explains that during download of an update, a download agent or download client may use a key to authenticate the update” and “during its update activity (i.e., during the act of performing the update), an update agent may use a separate key to authenticate the update.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 25 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:9–11, 4:29–30, 7:61–67). Then Dr. Jeffay testifies that” slip op. at 44

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on our review of the ’607 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’607 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Jeffay and Dr. Almeroth, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, with approximately two years of work experience or research related to the development and programming of video or camera-based computer systems.” Although the’607 patent uses computer-based systems for security and surveillance purposes, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art having experience with video- or camera-based computer systems would be able to apply such knowledge to security and surveillance systems. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Patent Owner’s or Dr. Almeroth’s definition.” slip op. at 15

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

    “programmable sensor agent,” “device programming file,” “programming key,” “configurable device,” and “programming . . . to perform at least said selected at least one new feature.” Pet. 14‒22. Although Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms, Patent Owner argues no explicit construction of these terms is required. See PO Resp. 9– 17. We agree with Patent Owner and determine that none of the terms require construction for our analysis. slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for patent owner

    “on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Absent clear reliance on the preamble in the prosecution history, or in situations where it is necessary to provide antecedent basis for the body of the claim, the preamble generally is not limiting.” Symantec Corp. v. Comput. Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, preamble language that merely states the purpose or intended use of an invention generally is not treated as limiting the scope of a claim. See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering–Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Yet, when the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the present case, we are persuaded that the preamble in the claims states an intended use for the recited methods. First, the body of each claim recites limitations that dictate the specific steps of the methods, specifically claiming what should be received, programmed, and verified during each part of the method. See Ex. 1001, 18:24–41, 18:63–19:15. Therefore, there is no reliance upon the preamble to define the steps or subject matter of the claimed invention because it is expressed explicitly in the body of the claims. Second, for both claims 1 and 10, the body of the claims recite that the method includes “receiving a device programming file in a programmable sensor agent of the security and/or surveillance system.” Id. Therefore, the preamble language is redundant of the language recited specifically in the body of the claims and merely states an intended purpose of the recited claim. Accordingly, we determine that the preamble to claims 1 and 10 in the ’607 patent are not limiting.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,508,607 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,508,607
• Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2018-00972 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable over Strub-based grounds; the Board grants the motion to amend, allowing substitute claims 15–28.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the “combined” limitation encompasses the multitrack embodiment of the ’307 patent. Both independent claims 1 and 12 recite that the “local audio data” is “combined with said remotely recorded audio data.” In view of Mr. DeFilippis’s testimony that the “combined” limitation allows “multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files” (Ex. 2086 ¶ 18), we determine that claims 1 and 12 do not require the claimed “local audio data” and “remotely recorded audio data” to be derived from the same source. Furthermore, every occurrence of the term “combined” in the ’307 patent specification outside of the claims refers to the combination of audio into a multi-track file. See,e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:12–14 (“This accuracy allows multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files electronically post-recording.”), 5:6–7 (“the multiple audio recordings are combined to create one single recording”), 16:40–44 (“[T]he local audio device of each performer . . . may be combined to create one or more multitrack audio files that are stored with master timestamps generated by the receiver/recorder's internal master timecode generator.”), 19:2–4 (“[A]ll of the individual audio files may be combined to provide one or more comprehensive audio files.”). Although we agree with Patent Owner that the ’307 patent specification describes an embodiment of a through the replacement of data, we are not persuaded that the recited “combined” limitation is limited to that embodiment, but rather also encompasses the multi-track embodiment of the ’307 patent. Id. at 4:15–18. Thus, we determine that the limitation “said local audio data is retrieved during or subsequent to said audio event and is combined with said remotely recorded audio data” does not require that the local and remote audio data originate from the same source because the ’307 patent specification contemplates a broader definition—one that includes the combination of local audio data and remotely recorded audio data to create a multi-track audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2–4; Ex. 2086 ¶ 18. Based on the foregoing, we construe the “combining” limitation as broad enough to encompass combining local audio data and remotely recorded audio data, without a requirement that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data are the same. In other words, we construe the “combining” limitation to encompass the disclosed multitrack embodiment in the ’307 patent specification, where separate audio tracks are combined to form a multitrack audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2– 4.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “and in a condition to be worn.” Pet. Reply 1–2 (quoting Ex. 2110, 1628). This definition is consistent with the plain meaning of “wearable,” and we find no credible evidence on the record that requires a narrower definition. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Tinsman, provides a definition consistent with Patent Owner’s narrow definition. Rather than defining “wearable,” Mr. Tinsman explains that the term “bodypack” is “[s]omething relatively small and lightweight.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2109, 41:18–22). Further, when describing “wearable” as “unobtrusive, easily hidden,” Mr. Tinsman clarifies this description as “[y]ou know, reasonable to carry around.” Ex. 2109, 47:20–22. We determine that no other express claim construction analysis of any” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “of the ’307 patent, would have “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two to five years working with audio and wireless communications systems.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24). Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. DeFilippis, similarly opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems either in industry or in graduate school.” Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. We adopt Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art as it is agreed upon and consistent with the prior art of record. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). Specifically, we adopt that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the ’307 patent, would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24); Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner identifies a first local audio device disclosed by Strub as “a small, lightweight, wearable recording unit.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1003, 4:29–31; citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–31, 14:59–15:11, 16:66–17:24, 38:65–39:11, 66:33– 51, 67:54–68:10, 72:10–19, Figs. 1, 8A–8C, 9A, 9B; Ex. 1011 ¶ 46). Petitioner further identifies the first local audio device as including position position data or biometric data, and time data. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:39–52, 35:53–61, 37:55–62, 63:41–60; Ex. 1011 ¶ 47). Finally, Petitioner identifies Strub’s disclosure of other recording devices to which local audio data is transmitted via transmitter 309 or wired connections. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3). In summary, Strub discloses a local audio device that records local audio and transmits the local audio to other remote devices. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 105–108, 8:50–53, 12:4–39, 66:7–25). Therefore, Petitioner has identified two devices in Strub—a local audio device and a remote audio device that receives the transmitted audio. Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3. Petitioner has also identified the claimed local audio as the audio that is stored by a local audio device and transmitted to a remote audio device. Id. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s argument that Strub fails to disclose “that the same local audio is stored at both the wearable local audio device as local audio data and the remote receiver/recorder as remotely recorded audio data and that the local audio data is combined with the remotely recorded audio data” is not persuasive because it is inconsistent with our claim construction discussed above. See Section II.B.1; PO Resp. 32. We do not construe the limitation “said local audio data may be retrieved after said locally recording and combined with said remotely recorded audio data” to require that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data be the same data. Id. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Strub discloses the disputed element because Strub discloses local audio devices transmitting recordings to other recording units and the recording units timestamping the recorded audio and synchronizing, i.e., combining, processing. Ex. 1003, 13:50–67. Patent Owner further argues that Strub does not disclose a local audio device “wearable by a creator of said locally generated audio.” PO Resp. 34–35. Patent Owner argues that Strub’s device is not “small, lightweight, unobtrusive, easily hidden, not visible, and designed to be worn on the body of a creator of audio (i.e., performer)” based on its claim construction. Id. at 34; see Section II.B.2. Mr. DeFilippis, Patent Owner’s expert, opines that Strub’s system “would require a computer that could compare content from multiple mpeg sources in real time and multiplex the results to a recording,” and the “hardware and software to do this could not be incorporated into a back pack, let alone a bodypack.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2086 ¶ 43).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,336,307 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,336,307

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.