• Target Corporation v. Proxicom Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00931 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 are unpatentable over Perttila alone or Perttila and Insolia; claims 37 and 43 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We instituted trial based on all asserted claims and grounds of unpatentability as follows: Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43, 102(b)3 Perttila 48, 52, 55 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43, 103(a) Perttila 48, 49, 52, 55 27, 31, 53, 54” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner concedes that the level of skill as defined by Petitioner “is generally sufficient for the Board to evaluate the Petition Grounds.” PO Resp. 9. However, Patent Owner also notes that “Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art does not include any reference to electronic commerce” and contends that “a POSITA should also have 1-2 years of experience designing or implementing systems for electronic commerce including the use of wireless communications.”5 Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 6–9, 22–24). The level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the references themselves. 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). The level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner appears to be consistent with that of the references, and we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. We note that we would reach the same conclusions herein using Patent Owner’s alternate definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Notwithstanding the arguments in its briefing, Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged during the hearing that the claims require the entity or object to have a physical presence. See, e.g., Tr. 8:17–19 (“[T]here’s no debate . . . that physical presence is connoted by the word ‘proximity’ and by ‘located.’”). There is, accordingly, no controversy regarding whether “an entity or object located in proximity to the second device” requires the entity or object to have a physical presence. Moreover, as explained below our decision does not depend on an express construction of this term. We conclude, therefore, that there is no need for us to construe this term. 2. “wireless device” Patent Owner argues that, as recited in the challenged claims, “wireless device” “refer[s] to wireless communication capabilities, not that a wireless device would be precluded from having any external wires whatsoever.” PO Resp. 19. However, Patent Owner concedes that construction of “wireless device” is “not necessary to resolve the dispute here.” Id. Petitioner argues that “‘wireless device’ should be construed to require a device without external wires,” noting that the claims of the ’359 patent recite a “wireless device” rather than a “wireless communication device.” Pet. Reply 5–6. However, Petitioner also concedes that “no construction of this term is necessary.” Id. at 5. No construction of this term is necessary. The parties both agree that no construction is needed, and as explained below our decision does not depend on a construction of this term.” slip op. at 12

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

    “As noted above, Petitioner maps Perttila’s disclosure of “electronic coupon information including various offerings” to the recited “list of goods” and notes that the merchant-media device can be located in a store where the advertised goods are sold. Pet. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26, 39); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant identifies adequately any “list of goods” that Perttila’s remote server delivers to the first wireless device. At best, Petitioner and its declarant describe an iterative process whereby a user interacts with a plurality of tags or beacons in a store to receive multiple electronic coupons. Pet. Reply 17–18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner fails to explain adequately how delivering coupons one at a time in an iterative process constitutes delivering a list of goods as part of an electronic commerce transaction. Petitioner also refers to Perttila’s disclosure of delivering a restaurant menu. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner and its declarant again fail to explain adequately how sending a restaurant menu constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Perttila discloses that, in embodiments, the billboard may promote a food product and the user’s interaction with the billboard results in the server sending “a restaurant menu or a recipe involving that particular food or food type.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 26. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant explain adequately how this constitutes a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Notably, Petitioner and its declarant fail to identify any discussion or suggestion in Perttila of the user interacting with the menu after it has been delivered. Nor do we see any such disclosure in Perttila. Rather, Perttila merely discloses sending a restaurant menu as part of “electronic coupon information”: “In another application, the billboard may be promoting a food product, and the request to the remote server corresponds to a request for receiving electronic coupon information including, for example, a restaurant menu or a recipe involving that particular food or food type.” Id. Moreover, we note that Petitioner does not propose to modify Perttila’s system in some manner such that a user could interact with the delivered menu as part of an electronic commerce transaction. Petitioner also refers to Perttila’s disclosure of delivering a movie ticket. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44–50); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner and its declarant again fail to explain adequately how sending an electronic movie ticket constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Perttila discloses that its system may be used to purchase a movie ticket that is redeemed “at a time much later than the time when the electronic coupon is received.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. Perttila discloses purchasing the movie ticket and later using a menu displayed on the user’s mobile phone to activate and validate the ticket at the theater. E.g., id. ¶¶ 46–50. Petitioner fails to explain persuasively how delivering an electronic movie ticket in the manner disclosed by Perttila constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,090,359 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,090,359
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Wabco Holdings Inc. / Laydon Composites Ltd. v. Transtex Composites Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,449,017
• Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,887,332
• Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,323,980
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2017 · IPR2016-00159 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6 are unpatentable over Swimmer; claims 3–5 and 10–15 were not shown unpatentable on the grounds decided.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “11 Petitioner does not allege, and we do not find, that Martin teaches or suggests the “Downloadable scanner” and “database manager” elements that we find to be lacking from Swimmer in our analysis of claim 10 in Section III.B.4.a.iv, supra. Accordingly, for the additional reasons set forth in that section, we also are not persuaded that Petitioner has carried its burden with respect to claims 12–14, which each depend from claim 10.” slip op. at 58

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “5. Secondary Considerations Patent Owner contends that its patented inventions have received” slip op. at 60

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

    “accord to the evidence, rather than its admissibility, and are not the proper subject of a motion to exclude. Although we recognize that Mr. Hawes did not begin working at Virus Bulletin until 2006 and did not personally attend the 1995 Virus Bulletin Conference (see Ex. 2045, 7:8, 13:17–19), we credit his testimony as based on his personal knowledge of Virus Bulletin’s regular business practices and his understanding of Virus Bulletin’s business records derived from his employment at and role as Chief of Operations at Virus Bulletin (see id. at 12:25–13:9; Ex. 1088 ¶¶ 1–5; Ex. 1089 ¶¶ 1–9; see also Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (records kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity not excluded by hearsay rule)). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that because Mr. Hawes’s testimony is based on his perceptions, rather than on any alleged scientific or specialized knowledge, Patent Owner’s reliance on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Testimony by Experts”) is misplaced. See Pet. Opp. Mot. Excl. 10. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as it relates to Exhibits 1088 and 1089.” slip op. at 76

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “general approach for considering challenges to the admissibility of evidence was outlined in Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., Case IPR2013-00053, slip op. at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014),” which stated that, “similar to a district court in a bench trial, the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented.” Id. (citing Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received . . . .”)); see also Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Vaughan’s challenge goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of Lueptow’s testimony and analysis.”). In reaching our decision, we have considered and weighed the testimony provided by Dr. Goodwin and Dr. Medvidovic, as well as Petitioner’s arguments relying on that testimony, in light of Patent Owner’s arguments, but we decline to exclude the cited exhibits or the portions of the Reply citing them. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied to the extent it relates to Exhibits 1088 and 1089.” slip op. at 75

  Patent outcomesUS 8,677,494 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,494
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2017 · IPR2016-01174 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Swimmer; claims 3–5 and 10–15 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’494 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Swimmer. Petitioner has not demonstrated that claims 10, 11, and 16 are unpatentable over Swimmer or that claims 3–5 and 12–14 are unpatentable over the combination of Swimmer and Martin. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’494 patent have been shown to be unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that claims 3–5 and 10–15 of the ’494 patent have not been shown to be unpatentable;” slip op. at 82

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 14

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

    “1. Principles of Law A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the” slip op. at 13

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

    “proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, to prove obviousness, there must have been, at the time of invention, “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. In this case, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has identified such a reason to combine the Martin’s teachings with those of Swimmer in the fashion required by dependent claims 3–5 and 12–14. The burden to prove the unpatentability of these challenged claims rests with Petitioner, and we conclude for the foregoing reasons that Petitioner has not carried its burden.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 8,677,494 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,494
• Symantec Corp. / Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01892 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6 are unpatentable over Swimmer under § 103; claims 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “consideration of the Preliminary Response (Paper 7) of Patent Owner, Finjan, Inc., we instituted a trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and subsequently joined Case IPR2016-00890 with the instant case. Paper 9 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec. on Inst.”); see also Paper 30 (copy of decision instituting inter partes review in Case IPR2016-00890 and granting motion for joinder; also filed as IPR2016-00890, Paper 8).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “1 Case IPR2016-00890 has been joined with the instant proceeding.” slip op. at 1

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the differences in the declarants’ assertions are negligible and that both assessments are consistent with the ’494 patent and the referenced prior art. For the purposes of the analysis below, we adopt Dr. Medvidovic’s assessment.” slip op. at 22

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

    “As explained in Section III.B.4.a.i, supra, we are persuaded by Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony that Swimmer was publicly available at least as early as December 1995 and is, accordingly, prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a),6 as well as that Exhibit 1005 represents an authentic 6 As further mentioned in Section II.B, supra, we determined in our Decision on Institution in Case IPR2016-00159 that the ’494 patent is not entitled to any earlier priority date than the November 6, 1997, filing date of the ’388 application, based on the record then before us in that case. See IPR2016- 00159, slip op. at 10–13 (PTAB May 13, 2016) (Paper 8). Because that date is more than one year after December 31, 1995, Swimmer would also be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on the December 1995 publication date. copy of Swimmer and Exhibit 1010 represents an authentic copy of the Virus Bulletin Proceedings within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Further, Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides that evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Both the Federal Circuit and the Board have recognized that there is a “low threshold for relevancy.” See, e.g., OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Laird Techs., Inc. v. GrafTech Int’l Holdings, Inc., Case IPR2014-00025, slip op. at 44 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2015) (Paper 45). There is no question on this record that Swimmer is relevant to the patentability of the challenged claims in this case. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibits 1005 and 1010.” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 8,677,494 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,494

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.