• Elmos Semiconductor SE v. Texas Instruments IncorporatedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00802 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–20 would be unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. 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 having ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) at the relevant time, would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent experience of at least two years working in the field of the design electrical driver systems for Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).” Pet. 20. Patent Owner has not addressed the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as articulated above. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ432 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases to reach our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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))). Petitioner’s constructions do not affect our determinations, and, even under Petitioner’s constructions, Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to its proposed grounds of unpatentability for the challenged claims of the ’432 Patent.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “First, even under Petitioner’s assertion that “controller RG . . . performs the functions of an error amplifier and amplifier output stage” (id. at 37), Petitioner has not adequately shown that controller RG meets all three of “an error amplifier,” “a control voltage,” and “an amplifier output stage.” Petitioner’s assertions that those elements are “interior to” or “include[d]” in controller RG are conclusory and unsupported. Petitioner summarizes and reproduces portions of Sudhaus regarding the output currents of controller RG, but has not explained the relevance of its summary and reproduction with respect to each recited claim element. See id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:32–33, 4:25–28, 4:46–50, 8:47–55), 40– 41. Nor has Petitioner explained why or how the summarized or reproduced portions of Sudhaus show that those claim elements are interior or included in controller RG. See id. Further, Petitioner also fails to show how Sudhaus teaches the claimed interactions and relations between the error amplifier, control voltage, and amplifier output stage. The claim recites the error amplifier compares voltages to “generate a control voltage” and the amplifier output stage controls output current “based on the control voltage.” Petitioner has not explained what specific signal controller RG generates that teaches a “control voltage” used to control output current. Nor has Petitioner stated, let alone explained how, controller RG generates a control voltage in the claimed manner and controls output current based on that control voltage. Simply because controller RG produces outputs that are allegedly similar to the claimed outputs does not by itself show that controller RG produces the claimed outputs using the claimed elements in the claimed manner.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,653,432
• New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00778 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim: Clark and Mills each failed to disclose required limitations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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(a); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies New Balance’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’749 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our patentability evaluations below.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Technologies Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00665 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  Institution denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the proposed obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law A petition must show how the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends the following assessment in connection with a person of ordinary skill in the art: The Challenged Claims pertain to a method of recovering geothermal heat. However, “[m]any of the techniques are derived from oil and gas industry.” EX1001 at 4:23-24. Accordingly, here, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a person with a Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, and/or Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering, Energy Resource Engineering, or the like, or at least five years of experience engineering, drilling, and constructing wells. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also have met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of a POSITA. For purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther

    “own for any claim term. Patent Owner does, however, note that “claim element 9c[13] includes the terms ‘means for,’ which are presumed to invoke 13 The referenced “claim element 9c” reads in-part “Means for producing a water density difference and a pressure difference between said first means-plus-function treatment under Section 112.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B Inc., IPR2022-01378, Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2023) (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part))). Patent Owner further submits that “[u]nder Rule 104(b)(3),[14] Petitioner had an obligation to provide a construction of claim element 9c that includes both the claimed function and the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” Id. We agree with Patent Owner that the term “means for” when appearing in a claim triggers a rebuttable presumption that treatment under § 112 applies. On the record before us, however, Petitioner has not explained why the noted presumption has been rebutted or does not apply, and has not provided a construction of the pertinent “means for” term in the Petition in contradiction to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 10

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

    “While it is certainly the case that “a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art,” see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is incumbent on a petitioner, in advancing a permissible theory of obviousness, to explain why a skilled artisan would recognize to pick and choose certain aspects of a reference and combine them with other aspects of the reference, particularly so where the reference itself does not suggest such combination. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests” ) (citation and inner quotes omitted). Here, Petitioner’s oscillation between different embodiments of Rinaldi in an attempt to reach the requirements of claim 1 is not adequately explained, and more closely resembles impermissible hindsight. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). In sum, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable as a part of Petitioner’s proposed Ground 1.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,320,221
• Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00460 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 and 12–18 are anticipated by Nishida.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination on the construction of any claim term or the patentability of any challenged claim V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’749 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 27

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “arguments that Nishida-US does not disclose the “simultaneously knitting” limitation of the claims of the ’749 patent constitutes “error.” Pet. 86. In our view, whether error or not, there is clear inconsistency on the record before us as to assessment of Nishida’s and Nishida-US’s teachings pertaining to the pertinent “simultaneously knitting” requirement. In that regard, as discussed above, in accounting for that requirement, the Petition unambiguously relies on disclosure in Nishida specifically stating that “when the strip of material (1) is manufactured, the patterns (2) of the uppers are produced, at the same time as the strip of material.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract (emphasis added by Petitioner)). At the very least, there is a reasonable case to be made that such disclosure conveys that the material (1) and the patterns (2) are created simultaneously. The record is devoid of any indication that the Examiner considered or apprehended the extent of that disclosure.15 “[M]isapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims,” as seemingly occurred here, does not lend itself to a conclusion that the exercise of discretion to deny institution is appropriate. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 n.9.” slip op. at 23

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

    “account for limitation 1[a], on this record, is difficult to follow. Nishida makes clear that its shoe making method involves production of material web 1 by knitting and which is “provided with a single or a plurality of unwound web part(s) 2.” Ex. 1005, 5. Nishida’s disclosure also, at this time, appears unequivocal in describing that “patterns (2)” and web material 1 (or “strip of material (1)”) are manufactured or produced “at the same time.” Id. at code (57) (Abstract). Nishida also unambiguously describes its material web 1 as including “surface areas 1.1.” Id. at 7. As is evident from, for instance, Nishida’s Figure 2, surface areas 1.1 surround unwound web parts (or patterns) 2.” slip op. at 18

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

    “2. Proposed Ground of Obviousness Based on Nishida (Grounds 2 and 6) Petitioner contends that claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on Nishida’s teachings taken with the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. Pet. 50–54. Petitioner supports its contention with citation to Dr. Brookstein’s testimony (Ex. 1003) as well as various record exhibits (e.g., Exs. 109, 1010, 1012, 1023). Id. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner recourse to a person of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge in accounting for claims 9, 10, 19, and 20. Rather, Patent Owner simply contends that the arguments it advanced in connection with Ground 1 also applies to Ground 2. As discussed above, at this time, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner also contends that claims 11 and 21 would have been unpatentable over Nishida and Zuckerman (Ground 6). Pet. 81–84. Patent Owner also contends that the arguments it advances in conjunction with Ground 1 apply to Ground 6. Prelim. Resp. 37. We do not find those arguments availing. On the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success in its patentability challenge to claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 based on Nishida (ground 2), and its challenge to claims 11 and 21 based on Nishida and Zuckerman (ground 6).” slip op. at 19

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2024 · IPR2023-00424 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10, 12–17, and 19 as anticipated or obvious over Acres, and claims 9 and 18 as obvious over Acres and Pyles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner indicates that “[f]or purposes of this Response, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 14. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art as reasonable and consistent with the prior 9 Person of ordinary skill in the art. art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Considering the discussion above, we conclude that the meaning of “data” previously offered by Patent Owner as “factual information, from 10 [JUDGE]: Counsel, let me borrow my colleague’s question. Maybe I’m belaboring this, but in your view, information that is sensed or collected or factual information that is sensed or collected, that’s effectively the same thing; and this case does not distinguish between factual information in that context and just information? [COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWER]: Yes. That’s correct, Your Honor. which decisions and subsequent actions can be made” finds support in the record, and also is in accord with the meaning of “data” as “information” that is offered by Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 2).11 Accordingly, we adopt the meaning of “data” that Patent Owner offered in its Preliminary Response as “factual information, from which decisions and subsequent actions can be made.” See Prelim Resp. 18. In doing so, we reiterate and restate our view from the Institution Decision that the record does not lend itself to a conclusion that such a meaning of “data” is so restrictive as to convey that any instructions, commands, or signals are “entirely devoid of content recognized as ‘factual information’ so as to be beyond the contours of what a skilled artisan would regard as ‘data.’” See Inst. Dec. 9.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Thus, Acres discloses that, based upon an exerciser’s heart rate, Bug 601 operates to send or transmit commands to treadmill 150 to control operational parameters of the treadmill, such as its speed and incline. Petitioner contends that “Acres’s Bug and its associated sensors are together a sensor device.” See, e.g., Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner does not dispute that contention. Patent Owner’s dispute arises from its position that Acres’s transmitted commands do not amount to the claimed “first set of data.” See PO Resp. 21–25; PO Sur-reply 10–14. That dispute is premised on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, which requires that the claimed “data” be only information that is sensed or collected in some other specific way by a sensor. As discussed above in our Claim Construction section (§ II.C.1), however, we do not agree that the record substantiates such a narrow meaning for the term “data.” It is difficult to conclude that a command that is generated based on a user’s heart rate that operates to control the functionality of a piece of workout equipment is not readily viewed as “factual information, from which decisions or subsequent actions can be made,” which, as discussed above, is a meaning of “data” that reasonably emerges to one of ordinary skill in the art based on record evidence.12 In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner also briefly states that Acres does not show that “decisions or subsequent actions can be made” from “data.” PO Sur-reply 12–13. It is apparent, however, that Patent Owner does not dispute that decisions or subsequent actions may be made based on the commands transmitted from Acres’s Bug. Id. at 13 (“lululemon has only established that Acres teaches that decisions or subsequent actions are made based on commands transmitted from the Bug.”). Indeed, no dispute is credible because, as noted above, Acres clearly describes the commands the Bug sends operate to control operation of workout equipment, such as increasing its speed. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. Rather, Patent Owner simply parallels its prior arguments that a deficiency arises because, in Patent 12 We again note that “factual information, from which decisions or subsequent actions can be made” was the meaning of “data” advocated by Patent Owner as a part of its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 18. Owner’s view, the commands do not encompass “data.” As discussed above, we do not agree with that contention. Patent Owner does not contend that any other feature of independent” slip op. at 24

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

    “agree with Patent Owner (see, e.g., PO Resp. 27–28; PO Sur-reply 14–17), but rather agree with Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. 29–31; Pet. Reply 19–21). The record does not demonstrate that there is some type of fundamental dichotomy between local data storage of activity at a piece of workout equipment and remote, central data storage of such activity that prohibits or precludes combining teachings directed to each approach. Rather, the record readily conveys that each type of data storage approach was recognized as known and viable. Even if there may have been some disadvantages with one or both approaches, the obviousness inquiry does not somehow mandate that a combination of teachings must result in something that is free of imperfection. As suggested by Petitioner, a skilled artisan readily would have recognized some benefits accrue to the local data storage approach advocated by Pyles. Even if there may have been some disadvantages to that approach, that does not nullify appreciation of the benefits that may offset such disadvantages. See, e.g., Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another”). Indeed, as argued by Petitioner, and as attested to by Dr. Houh, the record reasonably establishes that a skilled artisan would have evaluated potential benefits and detriments as part of various data storage approaches in the area of workout equipment in assessing obviousness. See, e.g., Pet. 29–31; Pet. Reply 19–21; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68–73; Ex. 1015 ¶ 31. The obviousness inquiry demands as much. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. McLean, postulates, without record citation, that some detriments may possibly arise in implementing data storage at an exercise machine, as in Pyles, in lieu of central site storage as in Acres. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 64–68. Yet, even if such less-than-desirable characteristics may result, neither Dr. McLean nor Patent Owner offers any cogent explanation as to why recognition of those characteristics undermines a determination of obviousness. In particular, Dr. McLean does not dispute that local storage would have the benefits discussed by Dr. Houh (a simplified, less expensive structure with a reduced number of components, which do not need to be connected to the internet), albeit along with the disadvantages discussed by Dr. McLean. Indeed, Dr. McLean and Patent Owner do not explain why a skilled artisan would not reasonably have evaluated any detriments alongside the potential benefits as a part of the obviousness inquiry. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). That test does not objectively fail if a skilled artisan would have recognized some disadvantages in combining the prior art teachings. See, e.g., Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,923,225 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,923,225
• Draftkings Inc., A Delaware Corporation v. AG 18, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01446 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 19–30 are unpatentable based on the listed anticipation and obviousness grounds; claim 18 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Module Terms each recite a “module” that is configured to perform or to oversee certain recited functionality, without reciting sufficient structure for performing that functionality. See Pet. 32. Further, as in Williamson, the word “module” in the context of the ’205 patent claims and specification is a “nonce” word, used “in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350–51. We therefore agree with Petitioner’s position that the rebuttable presumption against application of § 112 ¶ 6 is overcome in this case, because the Module Terms are not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See Williamson, 792 F.2d at 1349 (“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”). Patent Owner’s and Dr. Lane’s apparent disagreement with this conclusion in the context of the ’205 patent is unaccompanied by any argument seeking to establish that the Module Terms might be understood to recite a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2005 ¶ 28.” slip op. at 55

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence proffered by Patent Owner (Paper 31). Patent Owner filed an Opposition (Paper 32), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33). We deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence, for reasons provided below.” slip op. at 2

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

    “k) Conclusion Regarding Claim 12 Thus, based on the record presented, we conclude Petitioner has” slip op. at 32

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

    “Petitioner relies on Bryson as disclosing the subject matter recited in claim 1, except for limitations 1[g] and 1[h], in substantially similar fashion as discussed above in Ground One in relation to other claims. See Pet. 68–73. Patent Owner’s sole opposition in this regard is whether Bryson discloses the betting range limitation 1[j]. See PO Resp. 49–53 (Patent Owner’s opposition to Ground Four as to claim 1). We conclude a preponderance of the evidence establishes Bryson supports Petitioner’s unopposed contentions in this regard, for the reasons set forth in the Petition which we adopt as our own in this Decision. We accordingly find Bryson discloses the preamble 1[pre] and limitations 1[a]–1[f], 1[i], and 1[k]–1[m].” slip op. at 74

  Patent outcomesUS 9,978,205 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,978,205
• Draftkings Inc. v. AG 18, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01448 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–29 are unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe each 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “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.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “generally takes issue with whether Petitioner has sufficiently explained its construction of means-plus-function limitations. See PO Resp. 24–35. Nonetheless, based on the complete record, we find that the Petition “identif[ies] the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function” of this means-plus-function limitation in claim 26. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3); see Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:60–66). Moreover, we apply Petitioner’s construction for our prior-art analysis because it is consistent with and supported by the complete record.” slip op. at 38

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

    “9–11, 20 102(e) Bryson 9, 10 11” slip op. at 110

  Patent outcomesUS 10,614,657 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,614,657
• Draftkings Inc. v. AG 18, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01445 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1–9, 13–16, 18, and 29 are anticipated by Bryson; claims 10–12, 17, and 19–28 are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and determine that these go to the weight we should give Dr. Lane’s testimony, not its admissibility. See Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int’l., 385 F.3d 72, 81 (1st Cir. 2004) (“When the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony—a question to be resolved by the [factfinder].”). As Petitioner notes, we have adopted Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, which is a “bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, applied mathematics, or a similar field, and at least two years of experience” slip op. at 68

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983).” slip op. at 9

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

    “b) Discussion Patent Owner’s position that “dynamically” creating a list means that the list is somehow in the process of “ongoing” or “continuous” creation does not add clarity to understanding of the scope of claims 1 and 8. In that regard, it is not apparent what is meant by “ongoing” or “continuous” list creation. Does that mean the list is never static and must be in a constant state of change? Patent Owner does not point to any record content providing context as to the frequency of list creation that would give rise to such creation being “ongoing” or “continuous.” We also do not discern that the portions of the record cited by Patent Owner, including the Specification of the ’131 patent and the prosecution history, provide cogent support for Patent Owner’s proposed meaning of the term “dynamically.”” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “We additionally observed that Patent Owner agreed that the relevant Means For Terms and Module Terms were understood to be presented in a mean-plus-function format that invokes § 112 ¶ 6, but that Patent Owner generally disagreed with Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Id. at 17–18. For purposes of institution, we were not persuaded that Patent Owner’s argument directed only to an exemplary one of the Module Terms, i.e., “gaming operation creation module,” was adequate to deny institution, and noted that issues pertaining to the Means For and Module Terms may be more thoroughly developed by the parties during trial. Id. at 17–20.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,024,131 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,024,131
• Life Vac, LLC v. Dcstar Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · PGR2023-00032 · APJ Michael L Woods · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–17 were more likely than not unpatentable over Lih, Tarrats, and da Costa or anticipated by Lih.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “institute an post-grant review if “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed definitions are similar, with a primary difference being that Petitioner’s definition more broadly includes people having experience with “medical devices in general.” Compare Pet. 18–19, with Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s standard is “unreasonably broad,” arguing that Patent Owner’s definition for a skilled artisan “more reasonably focuses on the nature of the subject invention.” Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have necessarily required experience with respiratory devices, as Patent Owner proposes. See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. We find Petitioner’s definition, which would include “a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least 5 years of experience in designing or developing medical devices in general,” is consistent with the ’575 patent and the asserted prior art. Pet. 18–19; see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner expressly construes “bottom plate” and “check valve.” See Pet. 20–21. Patent Owner proposes a construction for “bottom plate,” “check valve,” and “connector.” Prelim Resp. 8–11. For purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not formally construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Each of the Challenged Claims requires a connector with a “bottom plate,” yet Petitioner fails to explain how the combined references would yield a connector with such a plate. See Prelim. Resp. 30–33 (arguing the same); see also Ex. 1001, 10:14–17 (independent claim 1), 10:46 (independent claim 3), 11:63 (independent claim 9); 12:35–36 (independent claim 13). Neither of Lih’s connector (element 118, Fig. 3) nor Tarrats’s “connector” (element 15, Fig. 1) has a “plate,” and Petitioner fails to explain how the lower surface of da Costa’s piston is being used to modify Lih’s or Tarrats’s connector to satisfy the claimed structure. See 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5); see also Pet. 28–29. Further, Petitioner relies on da Costa’s heart resuscitating device, rather than its dechoking device, in modifying Lih. See Pet. 29 (citing da Costa’s Figure 6 and relief valves 55, 56). da Costa’s heart resuscitation device, however, is used for pumping air into a patient’s lungs for the purpose of initiating blood circulation in the event the patient’s heart stopped working. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 6:43–52. The pressure relief valves cited by Petitioner are presumably used to prevent over-pressurizing and under-pressurizing the patient’s lungs, which we understand would be dangerous for the patient. We do not see a skilled artisan as incorporating da Costa’s pressure relief valves into Lih’s choking intervention device, which is structured to prevent pumping air into a patient. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:3–5 (“bellows assembly 102 may include a relief valve 108 configured to allow air to escape . . . when the bellows 104 is being compressed”). Petitioner explains that the combination would “avoid pushing the obstruction farther into the user’s airway while in use and to initiate blood circulation” (see Pet. 29), yet Lih’s valve 108 already “avoid[s] pushing the obstruction farther into the user’s airway” and “initiat[ing] blood circulation” benefits a heart-resuscitation device, not Lih’s dechoking device. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the proposed combination lacks sufficient reasoning. See Prelim. Resp. 33–37. We further agree with Patent Owner that modifying Lih’s device so that it pumps air into a patient’s lungs for the purpose of “initiating blood circulation,” as reasoned by Petitioner (see Pet. 29), would render Lih’s device unsuitable as a dechoking device, which is its intended purpose. See Prelim. Resp. 37–38 (arguing the same). To reiterate, Lih’s dechoking device avoids introducing air into the patient’s lungs, which would further lodge an obstruction in the patient’s trachea. See Ex. 1004, 4:3–5.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,478,575
• Google LLC v. Nobots LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00940 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 20 are unpatentable; claims 18 and 19 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted grounds failed to establish the required limitations for those claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’008 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field with coursework relating to computer science, plus two years’ academic and/or industry experience in computer security. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 2. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In considering Patent Owner’s explanation, and upon further reflection, we agree with Patent Owner’s reading of the pertinent sentence. In that regard, consistent with the remainder of the Specification of the ’008 patent, it follows that the noted sentence does not alter the contours of “acquired” data to also encompass “passive” data where that premise is entirely absent from other portions of the Specification. Rather, as Patent Owner explains, the sentence is consistent with the understanding that it is “active data” that is connected to the word “acquired” and “passive data” that is connected to the word “available.” See, e.g., id. Patent Owner’s explanation alleviates the ambiguity that was postulated in the Institution Decision. We have considered Petitioner’s views to the contrary (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 21–25) but find them unavailing. In particular, Petitioner does not reconcile its position that, although acknowledging that “acquired data” is defined in the ’008 patent, the term “acquiring” is not so defined and should be regarded as an “individual word” whose meaning is somehow entirely unconnected to “acquired.” See, e.g., Pet. Reply 21. We note, as we did in the Institution Decision, that the ’008 patent states that “acquired data” and “its equivalents and verb forms” is “a type of active data.” See Inst. Dec. 30 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:25–32). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s view (see, identifiable as a verb form of “acquired.” See PO Sur-reply 8. We determine that, in the context of the ’008 patent, it clearly is. Having considered the competing views of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we conclude that Patent Owner’s construction of the term “acquiring interest data” is consistent with, and supported by, the Specification of the ’008 patent. In that regard, we conclude that, as is advanced by Patent Owner, “acquiring interest data” must encompass the retrieval of some active data.” slip op. at 16

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

    “1–3 and 6–17 are found in Willner. Pet. 9–26. During trial, Patent Owner presented no arguments challenging Petitioner’s proposed ground of unpatentability of claims 1–3 and 6–17 based on Willner. During oral argument, upon questioning, counsel for Patent Owner expressed that “We did not present any arguments on Claims 1 to 3, 6 to 17 on Ground 1.” Tr. 30:3–4. We determine that Petitioner, via its Petition, has established adequately where all the features of claims 1–3 and 6–17 are present in Willner. See Pet. 9–26. Given that determination, and in the absence of any argument during trial challenging Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability based on Willner as to those claims, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 and 6–17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Willner.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Here, we conclude that: (1) the parties’ recognized level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 4; PO Resp. 2); (2) the knowledge of a skilled artisan as set forth by record evidence, including the teachings of Willner and Kitts; and (3) the nature of the problem addressed in both of those references, i.e., click fraud detection, all support a determination that a skilled artisan would have had adequate reasons to combine Willner and Kitts, and would have had a reasonable expectation in doing so. To that end, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition as to the proposed reasoning to combine Willner and Kitts, and also credit Dr. Lopresti’s supporting testimony. See Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118. We are mindful of the contrasting testimony referenced by Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Russ. See, e.g., PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110). Dr. Russ testifies that, in his view, there are “practical” and “technical” “considerations” in combining Willner and Kitts that a “POSA would have had to consider in determining whether a reasonable expectation of success exists, none of which are addressed or discussed in the Petition.” See Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110. The example considerations listed by Dr. Russ are reproduced below: 1. How Kitts’ passive data could be collected and stored in conjunction with the mouse vector data already being collected by Willner; 2. How to collectively analyze fundamentally different types of data—Willner’s mouse vector data on one hand, and Kitts’ passive data on the other; 3. How to generate a useful confidence score that is more accurate than the scores already generated by Willner, again taking into consideration that passive data is a fundamentally different type of data than active data; assessment using the complex statistical model of Kitts; and 5. To what extent additional computer hardware would be necessary to enable the combined system to effectively operate and whether such hardware could be reasonably implemented, taking into consideration both cost and feasibility. Ex. 2011 ¶ 108. Those considerations are generally directed to collection and use of” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,595,008 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,595,008

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.