- Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00159 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 19 are unpatentable over Minami; claims 1–3, 7, 16–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Good or Munsing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“lululemon contends, and Nike does not dispute, that a person skilled in the art in the relevant time frame would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear” and such person’s “additional experience compensates for any differences in that person’s education as stated above.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex.1003 ¶¶ 33–35); see also PO Resp. 14 (“For purposes of this proceeding, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). We find that lululemon’s proposed definition is consistent with the problems and solutions described in the ’046 patent and the prior art of record. Thus, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by lululemon’s attempt to equate the term “channel” in that passage with an open-periphery configuration. Nowhere does that passage indicate that the “channel” has an open-periphery. Instead, lululemon merely presumes, without support, that channels are open-periphery structures. More accurately, the terms “tunnel” and “channel” in the passage cited by lululemon are used synonymously. That is made clear by the overall context of the ’046 patent at issue, which is directed to how tubular rib structures 126 are formed by “first” and “second” curved portions 416 and 418 that are “knitted together” to define “hollow tube 112.” See Ex. 1001, 10:16–11:14, Figs. 4, 5 (emphasis added). In particular, the sentence cited by lululemon describes hollow tube 112 as being “disposed between” first and second curved portions 416 and 418, which Figures 4 and 5 of the ’046 patent clearly depict in a closed-periphery configuration. See id. at 10:66–11:3, Figs. 4, 5. Moreover, the very next sentence expressly describes that hollow tube 112 has “a generally cylindrical or elliptical shape” wherein “[t]he diameter of one hollow tube and the diameter of other hollow tubes may differ in some embodiments.” Id. at 11:3–14 (emphases added). We are not aware of any open-periphery channels being described as having a cylindrical or elliptical shape, nor are we aware of such a channel being described as having a diameter. Thus, lululemon’s proposed claim construction ignores the context surrounding the ’046 patent’s description of the tubular rib structures when it describes them as having the configuration of a tunnel or channel.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Nike, given our construction of the claimed “tubular structures.” As shown in annotated Figures 1, 3, and 4 of Good (reproduced below), Good discloses a sock 12 having rib portions 22 (red) and webbed areas 24 (green). See PO Resp. 19. lululemon contends that Good’s rib portions 22 meet the claimed “tubular structures” because each rib portion 22 “roll[s] substantially together in the relaxed condition” and “has the shape of a tube, namely an elongate hollow structure.” Pet. 29–30. In support, lululemon points to Good’s Figure 3 (reproduced below center) as allegedly showing the tubular shape of Good’s rib portions 22. Id. at 30. Annotated Figure 3 is a vertical cross-section of rib portions 22 (red) shown in Good’s Figure 1. But, as Nike correctly notes, Good’s rib portions 22 are “C-shaped knitted portions,” which when stretched, go from an essentially C-shaped configuration (Figure 3) to a relatively flat, linear configuration (Figure 4). PO Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 48–49). Nowhere does Good disclose that the ends of C-shaped rib portions 22 ever meet and remain in a closed periphery configuration to form a hollow tube per our construction of “tubular structures” (as discussed above in Section II.B). In at least this way, Good’s C-shaped rib portions 22 differ from the claimed “tubular structures.”7 Thus, we find that Good does not disclose or otherwise suggest the claimed “tubular structures,” as properly construed, meaning that lululemon fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Good either anticipates claims 1–3, 7, 16–18, and 20, or, alternatively, renders obvious claim 3.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In our Institution Decision, we said that Munsing lacks the claimed “tubular structures” because “nowhere does Munsing indicate that the rows of stitches or loops form a rib that is tubular-like, let alone one with a closed periphery.” Inst. Dec. 10–12. During the trial phase, lululemon’s expert likewise agreed, conceding (on cross-examination) that Munsing only discloses non-tubular structures. See Ex. 2007, 40:9–41:11 (“Q [by Patent Owner’s counsel]: So you agree that . . . Munsing only discloses a nontubular rib? A [by lululemon’s expert]: That’s what I said.”). Nowhere does lululemon rebut that admission by its own expert, despite Nike noting it explicitly as a reason for rejecting Ground 2. Compare PO Resp. 25–26 (noting the admission of lululemon’s expert), with Pet. Reply 1–26 (addressing only Grounds 1 and 3, while omitting any mention of Ground 2, which is based on Munsing). Nor does lululemon ever dispute the preliminary findings in our Institution Decision as to why Munsing is not an anticipatory reference. Compare Inst. Dec. 10–12, with Pet. Reply 1–22. Thus, lululemon fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Munsing anticipates challenged claims 1–3, 7, 17, 18, and 20.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,375,046 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,375,046 - Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00189 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7, 8, and 11–16 are unpatentable over Arrasvuori; claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 17–20 are not unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’256 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Lynch (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43, 44).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“simultaneously communicate in real-time to the first user at the first location and the second user at the second location, an interface indicating whether the challenge has been met.” Ex. 1001, 40:64–67 (emphasis added). The claim language itself suggests that “continuously generat[ing]” an interface in “real-time” allows the interface to indicate whether a challenge “has been met,” and doing so “in real-time” suggests that updates to the interface are generated as developments occur that may affect whether the challenge “has been met.” Notably, the subject claim limitation explicitly recites “continuously” generating the interface “in real-time”; it does not recite— but easily could have if intended—“periodically” generating the interface (i.e., at predetermined time intervals independent of the occurrence of developments that may affect whether the challenge has been met).3” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends Arrasvuori qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) based on its filing and publication dates. Pet. 24. Patent Owner does not contest the prior art status of Arrasvuori. Also, on this record, we have no evidence of an invention date other than the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Arrasvuori qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Arrasvuori’s publication date of October 11, 2007, is before the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is March 3, 2008, and under § 102(e) because Arrasvuori’s filing date of March 29, 2006, is before the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims (March 3, 2008). Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60), (63); Ex. 1005, code (22), (43).” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Arrasvuori discloses (a) “[m]onitoring” of “users performing real- world fitness tasks” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 38), using (b) “monitoring equipment . . . integrated into . . . wireless nodes and/or other computers of users, and/or [] attached to bodies of users” (id. at ¶ 39 (emphasis added)), where (c) “[u]sers might . . . wear their wireless nodes and/or other computers” (id. (emphasis added)), and where (d) “[t]he phrase[] ‘computer’ . . . refer[s] but [is] not limited to . . . a computerized watch” (id. at ¶ 90 (emphasis added); see id. at ¶ 40 (disclosing that “employed monitoring equipment might include one or more sensors”)). We find that these descriptions in Arrasvuori provide an anticipatory disclosure, particularly to the skilled artisan, of the limitation “wirelessly-connected sensor worn on an appendage of a first user.” See Ex. 1017 ¶ 45; Ex. 2006, 84:10-85:22. Although Arrasvuori does not recite in a single sentence the substance of disclosures (a) through (d) above, such as explicitly stating that its “wireless node is a computerized watch,” this is not necessary for the skilled artisan to understand that Arrasvuori discloses such a feature. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832–33 (anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”). Moreover, as argued by Petitioner, Arrasvuori’s disclosure of sensors “attached to bodies of users” and of users “wear[ing]” sensors itself discloses the subject limitation as broadly recited, even without considering the additional disclosure of a computerized watch. See Pet. Reply 17 (“Arrasvuori teaches wrist-worn sensors by stating that its users can ‘wear their wireless nodes and/or other computers.’” (citing Ex. 1005 ¶39)).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,278,256 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,278,256 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01576 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 13–18 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations fail to teach or suggest multiple LED packages connected in series.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–42). Patent Owner argues that its definition is superior because Petitioner’s “and/or” qualifier “might be read as considering a person who has ‘related circuit design’ experience but no experience with ‘LED devices’ to be a POSITA.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner further views Petitioner’s “or a related field” phrasing as potentially including a person who has no experience with LED devices. Id. We agree with Patent Owner on both points. We agree with Patent Owner that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’979 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill but note that had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill, we would not have reached a different outcome here.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“specification support its construction of “formed or mounted to” as encompassing indirect attachment to the substrate. Neither the plain claim language nor the specification requires the phosphor coating to be directly attached to the substrate. Limitation 1(c) recites, wherein the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating to produce a change in a color or a quality of light emitted from the LED chips, wherein the LED chips, the power connection leads, and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to a flexible substrate that is sufficiently flexible to be formed into a cylindrical shape[.] Ex. 1001, 22:7–12 (emphasis added). The claim is inartfully written, as it requires the LEDs to comprise a phosphor coating but then separately recites that the LED chips and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to the substrate. But Petitioner correctly explains that the plain meaning requires that “the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating” and that “the [same] phosphor coating” (included in the LED chips) is “formed or mounted to a flexible substrate.” Reply 2. In other words, the use of the term “the” before “phosphor coating” indicates reliance on the antecedent basis of “LED chips comprise a phosphor coating,” and thus the same coating of the LED chips is formed or mounted to the substrate. Logically, by including a phosphor coating with the LED chips, which are formed or mounted to the substrate, the coating of these chips is also indirectly formed or mounted to the substrate. Conversely, it would be illogical to conclude that the claim recites two phosphor coatings, one attached to the LED chips and another attached directly to the substrate, because the structure of the claim refers to a single phosphor coating of the LED chips. Even Patent Owner concedes that the claim encompasses the phosphor coating indirectly being mounted or attached to the substrate (in addition to being directly attached). PO Resp. 11 (“The ordinary English reading of the claim language does not encompass the phosphor coating only being indirectly attached to the substrate, instead, the language indicates that the coating is directly applied to the substrate.” (emphasis changed)), 13 (“the phosphor coating . . . is not merely attached to the substrate indirectly”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“After considering Patent Owner’s arguments, which we address below, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Wojnarowski and Martin discloses this limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner. Briefly, we summarize our findings, and then we address the parties’ arguments in more detail. First, we agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Wojnarowski’s AC input voltage would have been converted to DC voltage in light of the bridge rectifier and capacitor disclosed by Wojnarowski. Pet. 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119– 20 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 7:59–62, Fig. 24); PO Resp. 35–36 (acknowledging Wojnarowski discloses converting an AC input to a DC voltage). Second, we further agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that excessive current due to too few LEDs would have harmed Wojnarowski’s LEDs, and too small a current due to too many LEDs would be insufficient to power Wojnarowski’s LEDs. Pet. 26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134; PO Resp. 48 (discussing, but not disputing, these assertions).13 Third, we agree that a POSITA would have recognized in view of Martin’s teachings and the knowledge of a skilled artisan that when configuring Wojnarowski’s device, the total forward voltage drop of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the DC voltage output 13 Petitioner explains the relationship between voltage and current for the LEDs as follows: “the total voltage drop of the circuit would dictate the current drawn by the LED circuitry, which would have been known to be inversely proportional to the voltage.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). of Wojnarowski’s circuit. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 132–38; Ex. 1008, Abstract (LED voltage “must be matched to the input source voltage”), ¶ 60 (“For AC or any other regularly varying input voltage, there is an additional requirement to direct drive voltage matching”)). For example, Martin teaches that “[t]he number of LEDs in the monolithic array may be selected to achieve a particular voltage drop across each device.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 22. Martin further explains, “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series,” and “[t]he number of LEDs is chosen such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED during the peak in the alternating current cycle is low enough so as not to damage the LEDs.” Id. The forward voltage drop across Martin’s 38 LEDs is about 171 V, which matches Martin’s AC input voltage peak of about 169.71 V. See id. (“At 120 RMS volts, the peak voltage will be about 180V [correction: 169.71 V],” and if the LEDs “can tolerate a maximum forward voltage of 4.5V, at least 38 LEDs connected in series are required.” (38 LEDs x 4.5 V = 171 V)); PO Resp. 41–42 (“While Martin references ‘about 180V,’ both parties agree that the correct value of the peak voltage Vp is 169.71 V.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 127)). Although Martin’s LED forward voltage drop (171 V) differs slightly from the peak input voltage (169.71 V), Patent Owner conceded at the hearing that the claimed “matches” does not require an exact equivalence. Tr. 38:9–11 (“Patent Owner agrees . . . that matching has a meaning that goes beyond exact equivalence.”).14” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 311(b). PO Resp. 22–25. This statute provides that “[a] petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” § 311(b) (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends that Martin is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) because it is not a patent or printed publication and is only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that documents are “printed publications” as of the date they become available to the public, and Martin became public on its publication date of October 21, 2004, after the February 25, 2004 priority date of the ’979 patent. Id. at 23. Patent Owner raises a similar argument for the Soules-II reference in Ground 6. Id. at 25– 26. Petitioner responds that the AIA framework permits the use of § 102(e) prior art in IPR proceedings, unlike formerly available covered business method review (CBM) proceedings, which restricted challenges to § 102(a) prior art. Reply 29. We agree. The statute governing the formerlyavailable CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) more broadly permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The broader language in § 311(b) implies that unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to challenges solely under § 102(a) prior art. The parties cite to no Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit has applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in appeals from IPR proceedings. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication was available as prior art in an IPR). The Board has also long permitted challenges based on patent application publications under § 102(e). See, e.g., Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 14 at 27 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) (instituting trial over § 102(e) ground based on a patent application publication). We therefore find Patent Owner’s § 311(b) argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 10,652,979 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,652,979 - Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01195 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 17, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Lee because the proposed combination was inadequately explained.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“’026 patent would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Annavaram, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, Patent Owner states that “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s stated skill level for this response” (PO Resp. 26), and Dr. Annavaram similarly states that “[f]or the purpose of this declaration, I adopt Dr. Harris’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” (Ex. 2009 ¶ 24). Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Based on the complete record, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Inst. Dec. 15; see Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“To the extent Patent Owner argues that these particularized selection clauses recited in different claims must have the same or similar meaning because they all use the word “selecting” (see PO Resp. 28–29), we disagree with Patent Owner. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We caution that claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears. Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray. Claim language must be construed in the claim in which it appears.” (emphasis added)). The selection clauses recited in these claims are plainly different on the face of the claims when considering the material differences in the claim language set forth above. According the same meaning to the limitations that recite “select . . . based on” indicators, “select . . . when” certain conditions are met, and “select . . . out of a group” of values would be improper because it would blur the material differences in the claim language recited expressly in the claims. Instead, we interpret the selection clauses recited in the challenged claims “in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears” and “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In other words, we do not construe the single word “selecting” in isolation, but, rather, interpret the full selection clauses recited in the challenged claims in the context of the entire patent. Claim 13 recites “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator.” In our view, the plain meaning of this limitation is clear on the face of the claim—a value of a control signal is selected based on two indicators, the mode indicator and the leakage indicator.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Tr. 47:7–23. Because the output of Kim’s NAND gates will be different depending on the value of Kim’s memory cells C1–CN allowed to “pass through,” we agree with Petitioner that the value of Kim’s memory cells C1– CN (the claimed “leakage indicator”) “plays a role” in deciding what the output of Kim’s NAND gates (the claimed “value of the control signal”) will be. Moreover, Patent Owner acknowledged that the output of Kim’s NAND gate is determined based on the inputs to the NAND gates (i.e., the sleep signal input and the memory cell signal input). JUDGE CHUNG: But, knowing a little bit about how a NAND gate works, isn’t it the case that the input to the NAND gates, G1 through GN, with the input of the sleep signal and the C1 through CN signal, isn’t it the case that input to the NAND gate determines what the output is? MS. ZHONG: Okay. So any logic gate, the output will depend on the input. That’s for sure. Tr. 44:18–25; but see id. at 45:3–10 (stating that even if the “output is in control of the input, . . . that does not mean the selection is based on that input”). Thus, we find that Kim’s NAND gate (the claimed “control circuit”) operates to determine its output (the claimed “value of the control signal”) based on its input of the sleep signal (the claimed “mode indicator”) and the memory cell value input (the claimed “leakage indicator”). As discussed in Section III.B, the Specification indicates that “select[ing] the value of the control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator” recited in claim 13 is synonymous to determining the value based on the recited indicators. See Ex. 1101, 4:4–11. Thus, the evidence of record shows that Kim teaches “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator,” as recited in claim 13.” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence. First, although Petitioner proposes “[s]ubstituting Lee’s inputs of leakage current and temperature for generating a power gate control signal” (i.e., Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)”) for “Kim’s inputs of leakage current and other ‘stimuli’ for generating a power gate control signal” (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 115)), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Harris explains adequately how they are proposing to “substitute” Kim’s control signal with Lee’s “control signal (BIAS).” For example, Figure A reproduced above does not show how Petitioner or Dr. Harris proposes to use Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)” in the proposed combination. Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough Lee’s control signal is analog and Kim’s control signal is digital, it was well known to apply teachings in an analog domain to a digital domain, and conversions between analog and digital domains were easy to implement.” Pet. 66 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 121; Ex. 1115). Dr. Harris similarly states that Figures A and B show examples of obvious ways to use in Kim’s system Lee’s teaching of setting conductance of the array based on temperature. A POSA would have found both of these ways obvious. That Lee uses an analog control signal and Kim uses a digital control signal would have presented no obstacle to a POSA. . . . That is, converting analog circuit elements and signals to digital was well known long before the ’026 patent. Ex. 1102 ¶ 121 (emphases added) (citing (Ex. 1115) (“Analog-to-digital converters (ADC’s) are ubiquitous, critical components of software radio and other signal processing systems.”)). But Dr. Harris does not explain adequately how “to use in Kim’s system” the digitized BIAS signal of Lee. See id. The only additional input signal shown in Figure A compared to Figure 4 of Kim is the temperature line that has the value of 0 when the temperature is cold and the value of 1 when the temperature is hot. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 116 (Fig. A). There is no explanation of how the modified teaching of the BIAS signal of Lee (i.e., modified or converted to a digital signal) would have worked in the proposed combination of Figure A.” slip op. at 69
Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,081,026 - Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01033 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and claims 1 and 17 are obvious over Bednar and Gunther; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,922 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’922 patent”). VLSI Technology LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8–9; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 45
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and (2) claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar and Gunther. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 1 is anticipated by Bednar or (2) claims 4–6, 18, and 19 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar, Gunther, and Willingham. The chart below summarizes our conclusions.” slip op. at 91
Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,004,922 - Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01144 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bednar and Gunther; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8; see Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“construction is erroneous. Accordingly, because the ’922 patent defines “power island,” we maintain and reaffirm that “power island” means a “group of components with similar power requirements.”” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“not to expressly construe “conversion controller” was erroneous or that an express construction is required to resolve any dispute between the parties. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that because the construction of “conversion controller” does not resolve a controversy in the matter before us, we decline to construe it expressly.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,004,922 - Wabco Holdings Inc. / Laydon Composites Ltd. v. Transtex Composites Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01319 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–11, and 15–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Layfield and Rinard; claims 2–4, 12–14, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Micklow does not explain how or why he proposes a different level of ordinary skill in the art as compared to the level proposed by Petitioner and preliminarily adopted in our Decision on Institution. See generally id. ¶¶ 28–31. Additionally, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Micklow argues that the difference in the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art affects the outcome of this proceeding; Dr. Micklow, in fact, states the contrary—that his opinions are the same under either level of skill. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 31.7 Nothing in the full record is sufficient to persuade us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary finding that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been “a bachelor’s degree in mechanics, aeronautics, materials, or a related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in the development of components of vehicles, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience.” Inst. Dec. 10–11; see Pet. 10.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer. that because thermoplastic material is more resilient than aluminum, we should adopt Petitioner’s argument. Pet. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1058, 1– 12; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 77–82). We must base our decision in this case on the arguments and evidence presented. As explained above, the record before us has contradictory evidence in the form of Dr. Micklow’s testimony that was not before the examiner. 16 Petitioner does not cite Exhibit 1018 in the Petition, but instead cites to Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the exhibit. Id. Thus, from the video, it is unknown whether the skirt panel is attached to the trailer by one strut, multiple struts, or additional features. Second, Petitioner does not identify clearly how the tested system precisely corresponds to the teachings of Layfield. For example, Patent Owner raises a number of issues with the struts and panels in the video to which Petitioner provides either no response or an unconvincing response. For example, Patent Owner argues that each embodiment of Layfield uses trusses 36 to “interconnect each skirt panel and reinforce the panel assembly,” while it is asserted that the skirt panels in the video do not have trusses and are not interconnected. PO Resp. 26. Petitioner argues that the skirt panels in the video were made according to the teachings of Layfield and did include “integral vertical lateral side edges as the connecting mechanism for adjacent panels.” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Exs. 1018, 2003, 2005; Ex. 1004, 18:36–39; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 63–64; Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 37–38). Other than stating that the skirt panels have connecting mechanisms, Petitioner does not address the fact that the panels are not interconnected according to the teachings of Layfield, as Patent Owner correctly pointed out. See generally id. at 19–21.” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“components (see, e.g., id. at 17:1–10), Layfield does not contain any express disclosure concerning the flexibility of the struts. Nor does Layfield include any discussion about the desirability of strut flexibility. The closest Layfield comes to discussing flexibility of the struts is by frequently referring to the struts as “support struts” (see, e.g., id. at 18:40) and discussing the use of a “bracket means,” which is on the struts, to “rigidly secure” the skirt panels to the trailer (id. at 6:48–49). Further, Layfield’s detailed discussion of the embodiment of support strut 58 shown in Figure 10, reproduced below, highlights the bracing and reinforcement features. Figure 10, above, shows the construction detail of a support strut 58. Ex. 1004, 15:45. Specifically, Layfield discloses that strut 58 includes “a pair of spaced-apart vertical members 160, which are braced by horizontal cross-members 162” and “reinforcing rectangular lattice 170.” Id. at 15:46– 54. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Layfield does not expressly teach that the ‘support struts 58’ are ‘resilient.’” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 148–149). We reiterate that Petitioner’s first challenge is based on anticipation. Thus, Petitioner must show that resilient struts are “either expressly or inherently described, in” Layfield. Verdegaal Bros. Inc., 814 F.2d at 631; see also PO Resp. 42. In its Reply Brief and at the oral hearing, Petitioner contends that its challenge is based on express disclosure, not inherency. See Pet. Reply 17–18; Tr. 9:21–11:4 (arguing that “this is not a case of inherency”). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood, based upon Layfield’s express disclosures concerning the material, structure, and connection of the strut, that the Layfield strut is resilient and can sustain significant and substantial elastic deformation.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 960–61 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Whether we analyze Petitioner’s argument based on express disclosure or inherency, we reach the same result. To begin, although we agree with Petitioner that a prior art reference “need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test” (Pet. Reply 17 (quoting In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), there is no express statement that Layfield’s strut is resilient or otherwise exhibits a characteristic synonymous with resiliency. Additionally, we do not agree that Petitioner’s reliance on the thermoplastic materials, disclosed by Layfield for construction of the strut, establishes whether the strut is resilient and capable of elastic deformation. The evidence submitted by the parties is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Layfield’s struts to be resilient based on the material alone.15 Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 74–82 15 Petitioner also points to a finding by the examiner, during prosecution of the ’017 patent application, that an aluminum strut was resilient, and argues (Mr. Tres opining as to the materials disclosed by Layfield), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 160–164 (Dr. Micklow contradicting Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the materials disclosed by Layfield). Further, the evidence is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the design of Layfield’s strut, specifically the taper design and mechanism by which the strut connects to the trailer I-beam, that the strut is resilient. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 83–90 (Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the design and connection mechanism), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 165–175 (Dr. Micklow’s contradictory testimony). Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Additionally, Patent Owner similarly contends that the modifications proposed are redundant of Layfield’s “flexible lower panel 20,” which already “allow[s] flexing when impacting a road object.” PO Resp. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:13–18); see PO Sur-reply 26–27. We disagree. Again, the proposed modifications here are to Layfield’s struts. In the context of Petitioner’s anticipation challenge, we agreed with Patent Owner and found that Petitioner had not established sufficiently on the record that Layfield’s struts were resilient. See supra, § II.D.a.i., ii. Therefore, the proposed modification addressed here, to make Layfield’s struts resilient, does not duplicate the objective of Layfield’s flexible lower panel 20 at least because (a) Layfield’s struts are a different structure than lower panel 20 and (b) modification of Layfield’s struts would provide greater impact protection to other panels aside from just lower panel 20. See Pet. Reply 26–27 (One of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to do so because Rinard and Layfield both seek to provide fairing panels with ‘sufficient flexibility’ to bend when encountering objects.” (citing Ex. 1004, 12:67– 13:4; Ex. 1006, 10:43–50; Ex. 1055 ¶ 47)). We determine that Petitioner has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to look to other similar types of trailer components that are flexible to make further improvements to Layfield’s design. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Third, Patent Owner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have a reasonable expectation of success at achieving the claimed technology by looking to the vertical supports of Rinard’s air scoops to modify the Layfield skirt panels 10 and support struts 58.” PO Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 237–240). Patent Owner asserts that because Layfield’s upper skirt panels are rigid and non-moving one of ordinary skill in the art “would not reasonably expect the hypothetical modified panels (with their reinforcing trusses 36) to move.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that Rinard teaches “an upper skirt panel that is rigid and non-moving” and so it is not reasonable to expect modifying Layfield as proposed would somehow cause Layfield’s fixed skirt panels to be able to move as claimed. PO Sur-reply 27–28 (citations omitted). We disagree for the same reasons discussed above—namely, we find Layfield’s upper skirt panels to be resilient. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a resilient strut adapted as claimed by modifying Layfield’s strut in light of Rinard, for the reasons proposed by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 27 (“Applying this solution to the Layfield skirt panel and struts would yield the predictable result of allowing the Layfield skirt panel 10 and struts 58 to absorb greater impacts without having to be repaired or replaced.” (citing Ex. 1021, 7–8, 11–12)).” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 8,449,017 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,449,017 - Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00350 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 13, 15–22, 24, 25, and 27–34 are unpatentable; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable, because the Rasmussen anticipation challenge failed.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 8,887,332 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,887,332 - Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20–31 are unpatentable over Monroe ’183; claims 15 and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Monroe ’183.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, inter alia, “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a real party in interest to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term real party in interest to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over the petitioner relating to the inter partes review. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15). We have considered Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we determine that Petitioner was not required to identify the Third Parties as real parties in interest because there is insufficient evidence that any of these companies exercised, or could exercise, control over Petitioner with respect to this proceeding. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the motion practice before the Court of Federal Claims and notification of that action to the Third Parties does not reflect otherwise. Although we acknowledge that the existence of the above-identified indemnification clauses supports Patent Owner’s argument, we are unaware of any inter partes review decision in which a real party in interest finding was based solely on evidence of an indemnification clause, and we decline to do so here.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“We decline to consider Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge as, generally, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments.” See Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”); Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003); but see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014- 00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“for the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The ’980 patent states that “the term ‘secured location’ may refer to residences, commercial properties, public venues, such as hospitals and sports arenas, government facilities, military installations and any other location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.” Ex. 1003, 3:20–24. This definition is non-limiting and does not exclude a changeable area or region. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we maintain that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’980 patent of “secured location” is “any location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Although the Specification of the ’980 patent gives examples of “response agency,” e.g., Ex. 1003, 1:41–43 (“an emergency response agency (e.g., the police department, the fire department or an emergency medical team)”), Patent Owner does not identify, and we do not find, a definition in the specification limiting “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments. Patent Owner also does not identify, and we do not find, anything in the entire disclosure of the ’980 patent requiring a “response agency” to be distinct from the “surveillance system infrastructure.” Accordingly, we decline to limit “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments, or construe it to be distinct from surveillance system infrastructure.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,323,980 - Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01580 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable; claims 7 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because Cuffaro does not disclose a specified number of votes and the obviousness testimony was insufficient.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“After institution, Qualcomm Inc. filed substantially the same petition in IPR2015-01580 (IPR2015-01580, Paper 1), together with a Motion for Joinder of IPR2015-01580 with the instant proceeding (IPR2015-01580, Paper 2). On September 17, 2015, we granted a motion to terminate this proceeding with respect to MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc., but not as to Patent Owner, leaving only Patent Owner as a party to the proceeding. Paper 22. On November 16, 2015, we granted Qualcomm Inc.’s Motion for Joinder, joining Qualcomm Inc. to the instant proceeding. Paper 23. Qualcomm Inc. (“Petitioner”) is now the sole petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“phrase “means for . . . .” Petitioner construes these terms in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, identifying an algorithm described in the specification corresponding to each “means” limitation. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, l. 8–38, col. 8, ll. 49–col. 9, l. 16, col. 19, l. 25–col. 20, l. 67). Petitioner identifies a general purpose computer, processor 704 in Figure 7, as structure for “executing the instructions associated with the corresponding function” recited in each “means limitation,” except for the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate . . .” recited in claims 5 and 20. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 7, col. 25, ll. 13–18). For the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate” limitation, Petitioner identifies transceiver 216, shown in Figure 2, reproduced supra. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, col. 9, ll. 54–59). Patent Owner does not contest these identifications. We agree with Petitioner’s identifications and adopt them as our constructions of the means-plus-function limitations. Specifically, as to those means-plus-function limitations that correspond to processor 704 in Figure 7, Petitioner identifies in its claim chart the algorithm described in the specification for performing each function of these means. Pet. 8–9; See also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“When dealing with a ‘special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation,’ [the Federal Circuit] require[s] the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function.”); Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]hen a computer is referenced as support for a function in a means-plus-function claim, there must be some explanation of how the computer performs the claimed function.”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by this reasoning. As Petitioner observes, the embodiments of the ’624 patent identified by Patent Owner are characterized as “examples,” and a person of ordinary skill “would understand that the example scenarios of the specification are not necessarily limiting on the claims.” Reply 3 (citing Ding Supp. Decl. ¶ 6). In addition, Petitioner notes that claim language in related patents owned by Patent Owner explicitly refers to participants, evidencing Patent Owner’s understanding “how to expressly create participant-specific voting requirements in claims.” Id. at 3. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner suggested that explicit reference to participants in such other claim language “was because it wanted to clarify that each participant got a single vote,” and explained its position that, in the claims at issue in this proceeding, “participant is implicit in the claim language as it is.” Tr. 78:16–25. But the claims are directed to a “communications apparatus,” and recite “votes” in the context of what the “particular communications channel” “receives.” Nothing within the structure of the claims requires resolving the origin of such votes. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the construction it agreed to before the district court in the Qualcomm Litigation. In that litigation, the parties agreed that the term “vote” should be construed as “a binary expression (to use or not to use),” a construction that makes no reference to the origin of the “vote” as from a participant or otherwise. Ex. 1014, 6. We see no compelling reason to excuse the inconsistency by adopting a narrower construction when the Board applies a claim-construction standard (broadest reasonable interpretation) that could only result in the same or a broader construction. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid anticipation and another to find infringement.” (quoting Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Elec. Supply, Inc., 431 F.2d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 1970))). Accordingly, we construe “votes to use a particular communications channel” as “expressions of preference for using the particular communications channel.”” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that “the Gerten device is not capable of and expressly teaches away from performing this functionality.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 33). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants within a piconet.” Id. at 16 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in the manner Patent Owner suggests. In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below. Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process (block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 60, 64. If the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use (block 120). Id. ¶ 45. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back to the default hopping sequence. Id. ¶ 10. But this would undermine the stated benefits of Gerten, which explicitly discloses: The above process can be applied to a Bluetooth example and includes identification of a Bluetooth device’s ability to support interference avoidance, the measurements of signal strength on all channels and identification of which channel should not be used without violating the FCC rules, a method of modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it will avoid channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still supporting standard Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled members of the piconet and a method of relating necessary interference avoidance information to the remote Bluetooth devices. Ex. 1003, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 9 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,477,624
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.