• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00712 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 were not shown unpatentable because Walker was not prior art and Kelly did not teach limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii].

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “b) Walker Priority Date Under Dynamic Drinkware, the Petitioner is required to show that “the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application.” In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner must show that (1) at least one claim of Walker is supported by its provisional (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/378,289 (the “’289PROV”) and (2) the specific subject matter relied upon as prior art is supported by the ’289PROV. Id. Petitioner does provide a detailed explanation about how the ’289PROV supports claim 1 of Walker. See Reply 5–10. However, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner fails to show that the ’298PROV provides support for the specific subject matter relied on in Walker. See Sur-Reply 3–9. Petitioner only explains how the ’298PROV discloses “predetermined criteria” but does not provide any other explanation for how the other subject matter relied on in Walker is supported by the ’298PROV. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Walker is entitled a priority date before May 1, 2003. See Riggs, 131 F.3d at 1384 (noting while “a prior art patent or published application cannot be accorded the benefit of its provisional application’s filing date absent a showing that the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application,” the challenger must also show that “the specific portions of the patent specification identified and relied on” to demonstrate purported invalidity have written description support).” slip op. at 25

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

    “evidence that Kelly teaches limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. As Patent Owner persuasively argues, “the recorded information regarding particular game play events” of limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii] refers to “memory to . . . record game play information regarding particular game play events” in limitation 1[b.ii], but Petitioner does not map “the game play events” identified in limitation 1[b.ii] to limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion, but largely reiterates its arguments from the Petition. However, none of these arguments or evidence demonstrates that the “game play events” in limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii] are same the “game play events” that are allegedly stored in limitation 1[b.ii]. Even if we accept Petitioner’s contention that it was not identifying button presses or the “game identifier,” but rather includes “game states and game events in the game process,” Petitioner provides no evidence or even arguments that what it has identified here relates to what it has identified for limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. See Pet. 29–33 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:23–24, 26:59–27:1, 32:27–33, 37:1–10, 38:66–39:7 40:33–45, 56:49–51, 57:27–33). For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches or suggests limitations 1[d.i] and 1[d.ii]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kelly. 2. Claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 Claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 all depend (either directly or indirectly) from claim 1. See PO Resp. 16 (explaining that the arguments for independent claim 1 also apply to the dependent claims inherent the deficiencies asserted with respect to the independent claims). We find Patent Owner’s arguments availing, as explained above. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 would have been obvious over Kelly.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “programmable variable parameter sets to achieve the mandated parameters,” we find that Patent Owner sufficiently explained “the notes from the 12/4/02 meeting reflect that the inventors proposed that their invention could raise the global payout percentage ‘to 75%’ – a mandated parameter – by ‘increas[ing] % of wins by the level 2,’ i.e., a secondary game level – a variable parameter.” See PO Resp. 28–32, 37, 38; Ex. 2016; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 23–24, 41–42; Ex. 2012 ¶ 90, 63–64. Indeed, Mr. Crevelt confirmed that that a POSITA would unequivocally regard disclosure of “win rate[s]” and “global payout percentage[s]” as disclosing the claimed “mandated parameters” that are achieved by utilizing variable parameters. See Ex. 2020, 15:7–18:4, 19:14–21:16, 24:25–25:15 (global payout percentages), 21:18– 24:24 (win rates).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 11,393,279 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,393,279
• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00708 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 were not shown unpatentable over Kelly or Walker and Schneier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). In assessing 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) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. Based on the testimony of Mr. Crevelt, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering, with at least three years of experience in game development. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–65). Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Id. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted above is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’336 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the record. Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purposes of this response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed level of skill, and under any level of skill a POSITA would not understand the asserted Grounds to raise any unpatentability issue,” and “this POR and supporting declarations apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 8. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’336 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes in this case. See id. slip op. at 13

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

    “b) Walker Priority Date Under Dynamic Drinkware, the Petitioner is required to show that “the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application.” In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner must show that (1) at least one claim of Walker is supported by its provisional (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/378,289 (the “’289PROV”) and (2) the specific subject matter relied upon as prior art is supported by the ’289PROV. Id. Petitioner does provide a detailed explanation about how the ’289PROV supports claim 1 of Walker. See Reply 6–12. However, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner fails to show that the ’298PROV provides support for the specific subject matter relied on in Walker. See Sur-Reply 3–8. Petitioner only explains how the ’298PROV discloses “predetermined criteria” but does not provide any other explanation for how the other subject matter relied on in Walker is supported by the ’298PROV. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Walker is entitled a priority date before May 1, 2003. See Riggs, 131 F.3d at 1384 (noting while “a prior art patent or published application cannot be accorded the benefit of its provisional application’s filing date absent a showing that the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application,” the challenger must also show that “the specific portions of the patent specification identified and relied on” to demonstrate purported invalidity have written description support).” slip op. at 24

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

    “We find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches limitation 1[f]. As Patent Owner persuasively argues, “the game play events” of limitation 1[f] refers to “game play events” in limitation 1[d], but Petitioner does not map “the game play events” identified in limitation 1[d] to limitation 1[f]. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion, but merely reiterates its arguments from the Petition. See Reply 23–24, 26. However, none of these arguments or evidence demonstrates that the “game play events” in limitation 1[f] are same the “game play events” that are allegedly stored in limitation 1[d]. Even if we accept Petitioner’s contention that it was not identifying button presses, but rather includes “game states and game events in the game process,” Petitioner provides no evidence or even arguments that what it has identified here relates to what it has identified for limitation 1[f]. See Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:23–24, 32:27–33, 40:33–45, 56:49–51). For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches or suggests limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kelly. 2. Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 all depend from claim 1. See PO Resp. 16 (explaining that the arguments for independent claim 1 also apply to the dependent claims inherent the deficiencies asserted with respect to the independent claims). We find Patent Owner’s arguments availing, as explained above. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 would have been obvious over Kelly.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,336 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,336
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fendgo, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00114 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because DiPerna964 and Strack do not teach or suggest the panic button readying itself to perform the claimed functions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “After review of the ’404 patent’s description, we find no disclosure that pressing the panic button together with another button causes the panic button to ready itself to perform functions (1) and (2) as recited in limitation 1[d]. The closest descriptions we find to limitation 1[d] are that the safety switch readies the panic button to contact 911 (Ex. 1001, 6:59–62), that the panic button may be activated by pressing the panic button with another button (id., 3:59–67, and that the panic button may start a speech recognition process that can trigger the device (id., 7:61–62). Consequently, claim 1 is itself the best source for determining what the claim language means. We determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “ready itself” feature of claim 1 is that the panic button “prepares itself to be triggered to perform the panic button functions (1) and (2).” Since the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear to discern the meaning of the “ready itself” limitation, we do not resort to extrinsic evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (explaining that extrinsic evidence is less significant than intrinsic evidence); Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Court of Appeals gives primacy to intrinsic evidence and resorts to extrinsic evidence only if consistent with intrinsic evidence); Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Court of Appeals stating that its “decision rests solely on the intrinsic evidence”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Thus, the ’353 application describes that moving the safety switch into position readies the panic button to contact 911, which is not the same as the panic button being activated to ready itself to perform functions (1) and (2) required by claim 1 of the ’404 patent. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosures elsewhere in the ’353 application is unavailing. PO Resp. 5–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 15, 17, 19–21, 23, 25); PO Sur-Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1006, 15, 17, 19–20, 24–25)). For example, while the ’353 application does mention voice activation with a codeword and activation by depressing of the panic button together with another button (see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 17, 21, 24–25), it does not mention that depressing the panic button together with another button causes the panic button to ready itself to perform recited functions (1) and (2). The application explains that “[t]he [panic] button can send a signal to a controller inside the device to activate [the code word activation] process” and “[t]he [panic] button can start the speech recognition process in one embodiment, to trigger the device.” Ex. 1006, 25. But that describes readying the device for activation by the code word, not readying the button to perform the recited functions. The ’353 application also mentions the word “ready” in relation to using a self-defense mechanism such as pepper spray, which does not appear to be related the readying of the panic button recited in claim 1. Ex. 1006, 15, 19–20. Petitioner has thus met its burden to demonstrate that claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent lack written description support for a panic button adapted to “ready itself” to perform the recited functions because the limitation is not present in the ’353 application to which the ’404 patent claims priority.3 Pet. 8–10. The burden of production thus shifted to Patent Owner to demonstrate that the ’353 application has written description support for limitation 1[d], which it has not done on this record. PO Resp. 5–8; PO Sur-Reply 2–3.” slip op. at 15

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

    “DiPerna964 discloses a separate “safety” switch that readies the panic button to contact 911 upon being pressed (Ex. 1028 ¶ 41), but there is no mention of pressing the panic button together with another button to cause the panic button to “ready itself” to perform panic button functions (1) dialing a public or private network for an emergency purpose and (2) activating the transmitting unit, as limitations 1[d] and 1[e] require. DiPerna964 mentions pressing two buttons together to activate the panic button (see, e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 17, 23–25, 27), but not to “ready itself” to perform recited functions (1) and (2). Petitioner relies on Strack’s triggering the collection of audio, video, and location data for transmission to a remote location as equivalent to a panic button readying itself to, when activated, perform the panic button functions (1) dialing a public or private network for an emergency purpose and (2) activating the transmitting unit. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–88). We do not agree with Petitioner’s contention because Petitioner fails to explain how Strack’s button press that collects and then transmits audio, video, and location data would ready the panic button to perform recited functions (1) and (2). It appears that Strack’s button press readies the device, not the button, to perform the functions. As neither DiPerna964 nor Strack nor their combination teach or suggest limitations 1[d] and 1[e], we determine it is unnecessary to proceed further with the obviousness analysis. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed.Cir.2006) (stating that we consider motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success only “if all the elements of an invention are found in a combination of prior art references”)).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the educational level, technology, problems and solutions identified in the ’404 patent and prior art references asserted by Petitioner. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level in this Decision.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,265,404 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,265,404
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (citing 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)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43

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

    “proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 48

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

    “generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,539,474
• Nichia Corporation v. Document Security Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2021 · IPR2020-00908 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8, and 11 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner’s planar construction of “mounting surface” was unsupported and the references did not disclose the claimed surface.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioner, “a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSA’) would have had at least a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and four [years of] experience designing or developing semiconductor—including LED—packages.” Pet. 13 (citing Shealy Decl. ¶ 31). Petitioner adds that “a higher education or skill level might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. at 13–14. Patent Owner does not propose an alternative assessment but states: “For the purposes of this IPR proceeding, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 26). We apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 6

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

    “For purposes of this decision, we need only address the proper construction of “mounting surface,” which is disputed by the parties. Here, Patent Owner’s argument and evidence produced during trial show that Petitioner’s construction of “mounting surface” is not in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that “the mounting surface having a plurality of recesses,” as recited in claim 1, means that the recesses are in the mounting surface itself. PO Resp. 10–11. As we discuss further here, this requirement cannot be satisfied by a single planar surface, as used in Petitioner’s analysis. See, e.g., Pet. 18. Both parties acknowledge the argument that the claimed recesses could be interpreted in at least two ways: The recesses could be (1) only in the packaged body, excluding the contacts; or (2) in the device as a whole. PO Resp. 12 n.6; see also Pet. 18–19 (reviewing the second interpretation). Under both interpretations, Petitioner asks the Board to construe the mounting surface as a plane. See Pet. 18–19. We need not resolve which” slip op. at 10

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

    “For the reasons discussed in the Claim Construction Section, we disagree that the recited mounting surface can be a plane and still satisfy all the claim limitations. Supra § II.B. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s planar mounting surface does not include “recesses” at the side edges of the body as the claim requires. PO Resp. 15. Rather, the planar surface identified by Petitioner sits below the recesses in Kim’s device—i.e., “the depressions or indentations in molded resin package body 37” or the device as a whole. Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 3. Petitioner argues that, even under Dr. Baker’s analysis, Kim discloses the claimed mounting surface. Pet. Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1027). Dr. Baker’s analysis, however, is not consistent with the written description or the claims. Supra § II.B. In its challenge, Petitioner compares Kim’s device to the embodiment shown in Figure 4A of the ’040 patent. See Pet. 38–53. As discussed in the Claim Construction Section, however, of the challenged claim. Supra § II.B. Contrary to the claim’s requirement that the device itself comprise a mounting surface with “recesses and electrical contacts [that] are sized to provide offsets between said mounting surface and said electrical contacts,” both Kim’s device and the Figure 4A embodiment show recesses between the device and a flat surface on which the device is mounted. Compare Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 3, with Ex. 1001, Fig. 4A, 5:11–14. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Kim. Claims 2, 3, and 11 also require a “mounting surface” because those” slip op. at 17

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

    “D. Obviousness over Kim and Shirahata Petitioner asserts that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Kim and Shirahata. Pet. 54–59. Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 12:3–5. This ground relies on Kim for the limitations of claim 1, including the recited “mounting surface.” Pet. 54–59. Petitioner has not shown that Kim teaches the mounting surface in claim 1. Supra § II.C. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Kim and Shirahata.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,879,040 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,879,040
• Eis GmbH v. Novoluto GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2021 · IPR2020-00007 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 17–26 were not shown unpatentable under the Taylor anticipation or Taylor-based obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDenied

    “disclosure of a suction cup “sealingly” receiving the vulva occurs when the vacuum is applied, not before. See Ex. 2034 ¶ 121. We disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that “Taylor discloses that arm 26 ‘compresses . . . and then expands bellows 160’ after member 156 ‘sealingly’ engages the vulva.” Reply 9. The single statement in Taylor on which Petitioner relies states, with reference to Figure 3 set forth above in Section II.D.1, “[t]he first stimulator 154 includes a suction cup member 156 that conformingly and sealingly receives the upper portion of the vulva.” Ex. 1004, 5:29–31. We agree with Dr. Jensen that this does not support Petitioner’s conclusion that a seal is achieved before the vacuum is applied, and credit Dr. Jensen’s testimony that reads as follows as consistent with Taylor’s disclosure.” slip op. at 35

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “5. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, we deny the portion of Petitioner’s” slip op. at 73

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

    “7 Petitioner presents argument that the term “pressure field generator” should be construed as a means-plus-function term limited to the following structure: at least one first chamber, at least one second chamber, and at least one connection element. Reply 25–26. As we find that it is not necessary to construe this term to resolve the issues before us, we do not address these arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 17

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

    “disclosure of a suction cup “sealingly” receiving the vulva occurs when the vacuum is applied, not before. See Ex. 2034 ¶ 121. We disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that “Taylor discloses that arm 26 ‘compresses . . . and then expands bellows 160’ after member 156 ‘sealingly’ engages the vulva.” Reply 9. The single statement in Taylor on which Petitioner relies states, with reference to Figure 3 set forth above in Section II.D.1, “[t]he first stimulator 154 includes a suction cup member 156 that conformingly and sealingly receives the upper portion of the vulva.” Ex. 1004, 5:29–31. We agree with Dr. Jensen that this does not support Petitioner’s conclusion that a seal is achieved before the vacuum is applied, and credit Dr. Jensen’s testimony that reads as follows as consistent with Taylor’s disclosure.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,849,061 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,849,061
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2018 · IPR2016-01452 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 27, 46–52, 54, and 55 were not shown unpatentable over Myers, Myers and Bostock, or Anderson because the references did not disclose the claimed fluid-flow limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “to determine whether it further supports the contention that Myers discloses the “flowing a fluid” step. Mr. Shale’s declaration discusses the operation of Myers in a manner that is virtually identical in substance to the content of the Petition. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 49–53, with Pet. 21–24. Mr. Shale does not address directly the “flowing a fluid” step or otherwise explain how Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool.”7 Accordingly, we find Mr. Shale’s declaration fails to provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool while preventing the fluid from communicating with a different flowpath of the downhole tool,” as required by claim 22, beyond what Myers, itself, discloses.” slip op. at 17

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1021, 75:25 – 76:7. Mr. Underwood’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses the “flowing a fluid” step. Mr. Underwood was asked whether there is “a fluid flowing within the Myers tool,” not whether Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool,” as required by claim 22. Id. Moreover, Mr. Underwood testified that “fluid doesn’t flow through the tool,” but rather just flows “into the tool.” Id. (emphases added)” slip op. at 20

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

    “claims 22, 27, 46, 47, 50–52, 54, and 55 of the ’099 patent. Inst. Dec. 22; see also Pet. 21–29. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Specifically, “[f]or a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.” Id. at 1332–33. Inherent disclosure is established where the reference “must necessarily include the unstated limitation.” Id. (emphasis omitted); see Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that inherency can be established by extrinsic evidence that “make[s] clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “C. ASSERTED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MYERS AND BOSTOCK Petitioner contends claim 22, and claims 48 and 49, which depend from claim 22, would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock. Pet. 29– 32. With regard to the “flowing a fluid” step of claim 22, Petitioner relies only on the contentions it set forth under its anticipation analysis with respect to claim 22. Pet. 31. Because Petitioner does not rely on Bostock to teach the recited “flowing a fluid” step, does not argue the step would have been obvious over the combination, and, for the reasons provided above, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers discloses the step, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 22, 48, and 49 would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,099 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,099
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2018 · IPR2016-01440 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–20, and 28–42 were not shown unpatentable because Myers did not establish axial translation, and Myers with Bostock did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “radially” in the Petition. In its Reply, Petitioner equates “radially” to “outwardly” and “axially” to “downwardly.” Pet. Reply 7. Patent Owner contends that “axially and radially” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art “to refer to movement relative the body and oriented relative to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 82). In particular, Patent Owner contends that “axial” refers to “movement along or parallel to the axis of the body, and that “radial” refers to “the direction perpendicular to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner contends its interpretation is consistent with the Specification of the ’099 patent and is supported by both its expert, Mr. Underwood, and Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Shale. Id. at 18–21 (citations omitted). For example, Mr. Shale testified that “‘[r]adially’ basically means left to right within the tubular body,” and “‘axially’ means up and down within the tubular body.” Ex. 2021, 189:5–7. Patent Owner further notes that Figures 4, 5, 11, and 12 of the ’099 patent illustrate arms 520 moving axially and radially relative to body 510. PO Resp. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “[c]ontrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, claim 1 of the ’099 [p]atent does not require that the body 10 be the frame of reference for the axial and radial movement.” Pet. Reply 13 n.3. Petitioner, however, cites no persuasive evidence to counter Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Mr. Shale agreed that “radially” corresponds to “outward from the body,” and that “axially” corresponds to “up and down of the body.” Ex. 2021 190:4–19. Consistent with Mr. Shale’s testimony, Petitioner’s analysis purports to show that Myers discloses movement of moveable arms (slips 30) “both axially and radially relative to the body 10 [of Myers].” Pet. 19– 20. Petitioner is not alleging movement of the slips of Myers relative to a feature other than the body of Myers or in some other frame of reference. See Tr. 10:1–21. Thus, based on the evidence discussed above, we determine “translates axially and radially,” as recited in claim 1, means “moves parallel to and perpendicular to the body” and does not encompass movement consisting of only rotation about a pivot point. slip op. at 9

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

    “The steps discussed above address how slips 30 of Myers are deployed, but do not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to body 10 during deployment. With regard to the slips, Myers further provides that: [Slips 30] are positively movable laterally relative to the expander upon relative longitudinal movement between the expander and slips by inclined spline connections between the slips and expander, provided by oppositely directed side tongues 32 on each slip sliding in companion grooves 33 in the expander on opposite sides of slots 34 in the expander in which the slips are disposed. The lower ends of the slips 30 are coupled for movement longitudinally with one another by being connected to a slip ring 35 having generally T-shaped slots 36 therein receiving companion T-shaped heads 37 on the lower portions of the slips. Thus, the slips 30 move longitudinally jointly with the slip ring 35, although they are still permitted to move radially or laterally inwardly and outwardly of the slip ring, upon relative longitudinal movement between the slips 30 and expander 26. Ex. 1004, 3:2–17. In this passage, the movement of the slips includes “longitudinal movement,” which we understand generally corresponds to a vertical direction, as opposed to lateral movement in a horizontal direction. However, the movement is described relative to expander 26, not relative to body 10. See Pet. 13 (using “lateral” consistent with the horizontal extent and “longitudinal” consistent with the vertical extent). Thus, this passage also does not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to the body during deployment.” slip op. at 18

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

    “C. ASSERTED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MYERS AND BOSTOCK Petitioner contends claims 4, 33, and 34, each of which depends from claim 1, would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock. Pet. 24–26. According to Petitioner, “[e]ach of claims 4, 33, and 34 recites biasing either a sleeve or a movable arm to a collapsed position.” Id. at 24. Petitioner relies on Bostock as disclosing a spring for biasing. Id. As to the limitations of claim 1 from which claims 4, 33, and 34 depend, including the requirement of “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” Petitioner relies only on the contentions it set forth under its anticipation analysis with respect to claim 1. Because Petitioner does not rely on Bostock to teach the recited feature “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” does not argue the feature would have been obvious over the combination, and, for the reasons provided above, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers teaches the feature, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 33, and 34 of the ’099 patent would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Shale expresses the opinion that “slips 30 move both axially and radially relative to the body 10, along ‘generally T-shaped slots 36’ that are linear and angled relative to the axial direction,” we find that testimony to be conclusory and entitled to little weight, in part because this testimony does not account for the upward movement of setting sleeve 40. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 53 (quoting Ex. 1004, 3:11); see also In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Accordingly, we find Mr. Shale’s declaration fails to provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” as required by claim 1, beyond what Myers, itself, discloses. We find more persuasive Mr. Underwood’s testimony, on behalf of Patent Owner, that Myers fails to disclose axial movement of slips 30. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–107. According to Mr. Underwood: slots [36 of Myers] are shown as angled relative to the slip ring 35. However, though the slips may move downward (axially) relative to the slip ring 35 as the slips move outward (radially), the slip ring 35 at the same time moves upward (axially) relative to the body. As such, the angle of the slots 36 within the slip ring 35 is not, itself, indicative of the overall movement of the slips. Id. ¶ 91. Mr. Underwood further reasons that “as the slip ring moves upwardly, the movement of the slips relative to the body in the axial direction is zero due to the slips sliding downward in the slots 36 relative to the slip ring 35 in equal proportion.” Id. ¶ 94. Mr. Underwood also” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,099 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,099
• Sipnet Eu S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2016 · IPR2013-00246 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–7 and 32–42 not shown unpatentable because WINS and NetBIOS do not disclose the claimed current-connection status.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “party-in-interest. Whether a non-party is a “real party-in-interest” or “privy” for purposes of an inter partes review proceeding is a “highly fact-dependent question” that takes into account how courts generally have used the terms to “describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759. Whether parties are real parties-in-interest or in privity, for instance, depends on whether the relationship between the party and its alleged real party-in-interest or privy is “sufficiently close such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels.” Id. A number of factors may be relevant to the analysis, including whether the non-party “exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding,” and whether the non-party is responsible for funding and directing the proceeding. Id. “The concept of control generally means that ‘it should be enough that the nonparty has the actual measure of control or opportunity to control that might reasonably be expected between two formal coparties.’” Id. (quoting 18A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4451 (2d ed. 2011)). Patent Owner has not demonstrated that Stalker Software exercised or could have exercised control over Petitioner’s participation in this proceeding. The evidence of record establishes only that Stalker Software provided the WINS reference, at the request of Petitioner. Pet. Reply 1; Tr. 28:3–9. This alone is insufficient to demonstrate that Stalker Software exercised, or could have exercised, control over Petitioner’s participation in this proceeding. Patent Owner’s evidence of the existence of a vendor-reseller relationship between Stalker Software does not demonstrate Stalker Software exercised, or could have exercised, any control. When a patent holder sues a dealer, seller, or distributor of an accused product, the mere payment of counsel fees and minor participation by the vendor in the trial are insufficient to establish privity between the vendor and reseller. Bros, Inc. v. W.E. Grace Mfg. Co., 261 F.2d 428, 430 (5th Cir. 1958); see generally Broadcom Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Case IPR2013-00601, slip op. at 7, 8 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2014) (Paper 23). Patent Owner’s assertions regarding witnesses with connections to both Stalker Software and Petitioner, and Petitioner’s alleged lack of presence in the U.S. market, are statements of counsel unsupported by any record evidence, and, in any event, are not indicative of any control of this proceeding by Stalker Software. Considering the lack of probative evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we disagree that Stalker Software is a real partyin-interest. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is barred from initiating this proceeding, or that sanctions should be imposed on Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “fail to determine whether a computer or process is connected to the computer network. PO Resp. 31–46. In view of our construction of this claim limitation, we agree with Patent Owner. WINS discloses that once a computer is registered with the WINS server (which is a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS)) as active and on-line, the WINS server maintains a database of names and addresses as active and on-line by (1) releasing names once a computer is shut down properly and (2) requiring a renewal time period in which a computer must reregister. Ex. 1004, 62–63, 75, 84, 130. WINS discloses that in response to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) name queries, “a mapping in the database does not ensure that the related device is currently running.” Id. at 73. WINS further explains that a “local WINS database should periodically be cleared of released entries and old entries that were registered at another WINS server but did not get removed from this WINS database for some reason.” Id. at 148. In other words, WINS discloses that the WINS database may include entries of computers that are not currently connected to the WINS network. See id. at 73, 148. Accordingly, a query as to whether a second process “is connected to the computer network” in WINS will not determine whether the second process is connected to the WINS network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. As discussed above in our claim construction analysis (see Section I.E.1), a query as to whether a process “is connected to a computer network” or has an “on-line” status asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. WINS discloses that the WINS server has information that a process “was” connected to the computer network, and that information may no longer be accurate. See Ex. 1004, 84, 166. As such, we determine that WINS does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” “currently connected to the Internet,” and “connected to the computer network,” as construed herein.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner provides the testimony of Mr. Kolesnikov that WINS was publically available and a CD version (Ex. 1019) was received by Mr. Kolesnikov in 1994. Pet. Reply 13–14; Tr. 19:5–19; see Ex. 1017. Mr. Kolesnikov testifies that he saw several Microsoft Windows NT 3.5 Server packages that included a print copy of WINS. Ex. 1017 ¶ 7. Petitioner further provides the testimony of Ms. Ehrlich to establish that the differences between WINS and the CD version are differences mostly as to formatting. Pet. Reply 13–14; see Ex. 1018. Ms. Ehrlich testifies that WINS and the CD version are substantially similar, noting differences in the glossaries and formatting. Ex. 1018 ¶ 6; Ex. 2044, 16:17–24. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established WINS as prior art. We are persuaded that WINS was publically available in 1994. Mr. Kolesnikov testifies to seeing printed copies of WINS and the CD version in 1994. Ex. 1017 ¶ 7. Mr. Kolesnikov further testifies he recalls seeing printed copies of WINS during installations he did for clients in 1994, and is certain that it was 1994 because he switched jobs in 1995. Ex. 2043, 29:1–10, 32:21–22. Additionally, we are persuaded that the portions of WINS relied upon by Petitioner are different from the CD version due to formatting only. Tr. 23:1–25:8. Patent Owner’s argument consists of alleging that Petitioner has failed to establish that WINS was publically available and does not offer any evidence contrary to that presented by Petitioner. Based on the evidence discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established that WINS was publicly available in 1994, and, therefore, qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 14

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

    “fail to determine whether a computer or process is connected to the computer network. PO Resp. 31–46. In view of our construction of this claim limitation, we agree with Patent Owner. WINS discloses that once a computer is registered with the WINS server (which is a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS)) as active and on-line, the WINS server maintains a database of names and addresses as active and on-line by (1) releasing names once a computer is shut down properly and (2) requiring a renewal time period in which a computer must reregister. Ex. 1004, 62–63, 75, 84, 130. WINS discloses that in response to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) name queries, “a mapping in the database does not ensure that the related device is currently running.” Id. at 73. WINS further explains that a “local WINS database should periodically be cleared of released entries and old entries that were registered at another WINS server but did not get removed from this WINS database for some reason.” Id. at 148. In other words, WINS discloses that the WINS database may include entries of computers that are not currently connected to the WINS network. See id. at 73, 148. Accordingly, a query as to whether a second process “is connected to the computer network” in WINS will not determine whether the second process is connected to the WINS network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. As discussed above in our claim construction analysis (see Section I.E.1), a query as to whether a process “is connected to a computer network” or has an “on-line” status asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. WINS discloses that the WINS server has information that a process “was” connected to the computer network, and that information may no longer be accurate. See Ex. 1004, 84, 166. As such, we determine that WINS does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” “currently connected to the Internet,” and “connected to the computer network,” as construed herein.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,108,704 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,108,704

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.