- Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00653 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’504 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 72); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 47. As reflected above, Dr. Wooley’s testimony as to element [1.2] does not even assert that Cardamone discloses a tank, let alone one or more sensors disposed at a tank as recited in element [1.2]. Thus, Dr. Wooley’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s argument on this issue.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,726,504 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,294,403 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,680 - Tanklogix, LLC v. SiteproInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00650 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–32 and 34 were unpatentable over Kahn or Kahn and Gutierrez.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’871 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 18–32 and 34 of the ’871 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The respective proposed levels of qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art are similar, with Patent Owner proposing two years of experience compared to Petitioner proposing significant experience with remotely controlling fluid-handling devices, like SCADA systems. Patent Owner also proposes more extensive experience in lieu of educational experience. While we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications to be acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’871 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the qualifications adopted.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“actuators and the remote control of fluid handling devices, including the receipt with the user-interface module of “a user command to actuate an actuator via a presented control interface” (limitation [18.7]) and “account authorized to send commands to remotely control fluid handling devices” (limitation [18.11]). We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses or teaches these limitations because the evidence does not provide support that there is remote control of fluid handling devices or the use of a user command on a control interface to send a command to a fluid handling device, for instance. Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but we do not discern that it teaches or discloses the capability to remotely control fluid handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, the Kahn disclosures that Petitioner repeatedly relies upon for allegedly teaching this control are deficient. See Ex. 1005, 10:62–67, 14:35– 15:2, 15:62–16:32; see also Pet. 12–14, 16–18. Kahn discloses that “the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance.” Ex. 1005, 10:62–67. Communication unit 112B is part of the local “sensor unit,” wherein the detection conditions determined by the sensor are communicated to remote devices by communication unit 112B. See id. at 3:31–33, 5:62–6:2, 6:27–35, 7:33–37, 13:7–12, Figs. 1A–1C. Kahn discloses that the sensor units, which include communication units 112B, can be located near shut-off valves and can communicate with distant locations. See id. at 11:1–13. There are no disclosures, however, in the above passages that there is remote control of fluid handling devices, that there is a user command on a control interface that actuates an actuator, or that there is a command sent to the facility actuators via a network connection, as required in limitations [18.5]–[18.7] and [18.9]–[18.12], respectively. Rather, the disclosure indicates that the communication unit 112B includes on-site alerts and that the local (non-remote) communication unit 112B can be interfaced with the control valve.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,488,871 - Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01449 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2 were unpatentable under any of the four asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” where “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’463 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’463 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“C. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. 25–26. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Further, because Bowen’s disclosed barrier height is outside the claimed range, Petitioner relies on Soukup’s purported teaching of a barrier height of “about 0.33 eV” and contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “achieve” that barrier height for the MgO barrier of Bowen’s device. Id. at 34–36. The data that Petitioner relies on from Soukup for the “about 0.33 eV” barrier height, though, was determined using the slope of an Arrhenius plot, not Simmons’ formula. Ex. 1028, 3229 (Abstract), 3231–33, Table I. In Soukup, apparent barrier heights for the samples were determined using (1) the slope of an Arrhenius plot, and (2) the zero-field intercept of the straight line logI versus V1/2 plot. Id. at 3229 (Abstract), 3230–32, Fig. 3, Table I. Reproduced below is Table I of Soukup, as annotated by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 39): Annotated Table I of Soukup includes the results of analyses of sample test data, with the column highlighted in yellow showing the barrier heights obtained by a zero-field intercept method and the column highlighted in blue showing barrier heights obtained from the slope of an Arrhenius plot. See Ex. 1028, 3233; Prelim. Resp. 38–39. Dr. Bokor testifies that “Soukup disclosed that Simmons’ formula was used to approximate tunnel barrier height” and “[o]ne of skill would have understood the ‘height and the bias dependence of the insulator potential-energy barrier’ [referenced in Soukup] included the tunnel barrier height.” Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 145–147 (quoting Ex. 1028, 3229; citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 45–49). We do not find this testimony persuasive. Although Soukup refers to “Simmons’ model” and the Simmons 1963 paper in its “Introduction,” it does not teach any calculation using Simmons’ formula to obtain a barrier height within the claimed range. See Ex. 1028, 3229, 3236 n.1; Prelim. Resp. 63. Soukup plainly recognizes that there are methods of calculating barrier height other than Simmons’ formula, and discusses at length its calculations using two such methods: the Arrhenius plot method and the zero-field intercept method. See, e.g., Ex. 1028, 3229 (Abstract) (“These results . . . indicate a potential barrier height of about 0.72 eV when determined from the zero-field intercept of the straight line logI vs V1/2 plot and about 0.33 eV when obtained from an Arrhenius plot.”), 3232–33. Petitioner does not address whether the 0.33 eV barrier height it relies on from Soukup (determined using the Arrhenius plot method) would still be within the claimed range if calculated using Simmons’ formula. See Prelim. Resp. 63. Nor does Petitioner rely on any values from Soukup’s disclosure that would be used as the variables in Simmons’ formula—Petitioner relies solely on Bowen. See Pet. 39–42. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that Bowen and Soukup teach a barrier height within the claimed range, obtained using equation (1), is not persuasive. See id. at 34–42.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,123,463 - Ens Labs Ltd. v. Unstoppable Domains Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00872 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, relying on Johnson’s unproven status as a printed publication.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description with regard to the level of skill at this stage of the proceedings. Prelim. Resp. 12. As Petitioner’s unchallenged description of the level of ordinary skill appears appropriate to the subject matter of the ’344 patent and the cited prior art, we apply it for purposes of this Decision, albeit without the two instances of the phrase “at least,” which introduce ambiguity. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (acknowledging that the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes express construction of any claim terms for our consideration. See Pet. 14 (“Petitioner submits that all claim terms in the ’344 Patent may be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.”); Prelim. Resp. 12 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner agrees that claim construction is unnecessary.”). whether to institute inter partes review. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). At this stage, we do not see the need to construe any claim terms to resolve the issues in dispute.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“of a document on a website archived by the Internet Archive. See Ex. 1018. That a person might have been able to download Johnson through public means is not evidence that Johnson was “made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Bruckelmyer, 445 F.3d at 1378. The Frank-White Affidavit’s evidence of public accessibility amounts to little more than Johnson was available on the Internet by December 13, 2019. Pet. 15; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 1–5, 7, Ex. B. However, because the Wayback Machine is only searchable by URL, as attested to in the Frank-White Affidavit, this does not suffice to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought out the Read the Docs website and, once there, located Johnson without prior knowledge of Johnson and the URL at which Johnson was available. Accordingly, the Frank-White Affidavit alone is insufficient to prove public accessibility of Johnson.” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“that Johnson qualifies as a prior art printed publication. All asserted grounds for unpatentability rely, at least in part, on the disclosure of Johnson. Accordingly, because the record does not persuasively support Johnson as a publicly accessible printed publication, we find that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its grounds of unpatentability. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims, and thus, we do not institute an inter partes review. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,558,344 - Vicor Corporation v. Delta Electronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00706 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“The Board has indicated that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 59 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).6 But “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. Here, although there is overlap in the prior art asserted, there are clear differences in the limitations in the respective claim sets in each case, which requires different analysis. The issues related to a potentially different priority date for claims in the -715 case also support the need for two petitions. Additionally, under these circumstances, it is not apparent there has been a substantial benefit afforded to Petitioner by filing two petitions. Thus, we determine that Petitioner’s filing of two parallel petitions does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution in this particular case.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art and its definition appears to be similar to that of Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 10. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’534 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “[t]he invalidity issues raised in this Petition may be resolved without any formal claim construction.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner offers no claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,877,534 - Vicor Corporation v. Delta Electronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00715 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Vicor had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“The Board has indicated that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 59 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).7 But “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. Here, although there is overlap in the prior art asserted, there are clear differences in the limitations in the respective claim sets in each case, which requires different analysis. The issues related to a potentially different priority date for claims in this case also support the need for two petitions.8 Additionally, under these circumstances, it is not apparent there has been a substantial benefit afforded to Petitioner by filing two petitions. Thus, we determine that Petitioner’s filing of two parallel petitions does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution in this particular case.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in power engineering” as of the date of the invention and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–48). 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 8 We address the merits of the priority issue below. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art and its definition appears to be similar to that of Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 9. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’534 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “[t]he invalidity issues raised in this Petition may be resolved without any formal claim construction.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner offers no claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 9. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,877,534 - Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01214 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over Almgren or Haartsen, alone or with other prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Petitioner Preliminary Reply, the Patent Owner Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’264 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21, 23, and 25–27 of the ’264 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active 8 Petitioner asserts that Haartsen is prior art under § 102(b). Pet. 6. 9 US 5,491,837, filed March 7, 1994, issued February 13, 1996 (Ex. 1005, “Haartsen”). workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner, without the qualifier “at least” because its use introduces vagueness, for the purposes of this Decision because it is consistent with the ’264 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner, however, argues that “[t]he phrase ‘without disabling any other communication channel’ encompasses not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” Pet. 25; see also Ex. 1008 ¶ 124. That is, Petitioner’s position appears to be that the recited limitation could be sufficiently disclosed or met by prior art if it instead meets the different requirement of “not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” We do not agree. For support, Petitioner cites portions of the ’264 patent Specification that discuss not dedicating specific frequency channels for measuring path loss. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:58– 61, 3:39–45, 3:48–50, 4:60–63). Petitioner does not explain, however, why the term “without disabling any other communication channel” should be taught by this disclosure of this alternative requirement or, in other words, Petitioner does not explain why that term should encompass “not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” Mr. William does not provide any additional explanation and merely repeats the statements of the Petition in a conclusory manner. Ex. 1008 ¶ 124. As discussed above, and as the parties agreed, we will proceed with the assessment of the merits using the plain meaning of the claim term “without disabling any other communication channel.”” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claim limitations at issue, and, specifically, the burden extends to negative limitations such as “without disabling any other communication.” See IBM v. Iancu, 759 F. App’x 1002, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that a reference’s silence was not by itself sufficient to establish that the reference teaches a process involving only one user authentication action). Petitioner does not appear to dispute its required showing, that is, Petitioner does not argue that the absence of an element in the prior art is sufficient per se to satisfy a negative limitation. Rather, the Petition affirmatively asserts that Almgren discloses or teaches the limitation “without disabling any other communication.” Pet. 25–26. Petitioner, however, argues that “[t]he phrase ‘without disabling any other communication channel’ encompasses not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” Pet. 25; see also Ex. 1008 ¶ 124. That is, Petitioner’s position appears to be that the recited limitation could be sufficiently disclosed or met by prior art if it instead meets the different requirement of “not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” We do not agree. For support, Petitioner cites portions of the ’264 patent Specification that discuss not dedicating specific frequency channels for measuring path loss. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:58– 61, 3:39–45, 3:48–50, 4:60–63). Petitioner does not explain, however, why the term “without disabling any other communication channel” should be taught by this disclosure of this alternative requirement or, in other words, Petitioner does not explain why that term should encompass “not dedicating a specific frequency channel for measuring path loss.” Mr. William does not provide any additional explanation and merely repeats the statements of the Petition in a conclusory manner. Ex. 1008 ¶ 124. As discussed above, and as the parties agreed, we will proceed with the assessment of the merits using the plain meaning of the claim term “without disabling any other communication channel.”” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,320,264 - U.D. Electronic Corp. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 15, 2019 · IPR2019-00262 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 14 or 17 were unpatentable over the asserted references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, Petitioner has not established that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As demonstrated in the analysis below, no claim terms or phrases require an explicit construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner does not direct us to any description in Molex or Regnier sufficient to support a finding that clip 110 is configured to provide electrical connectivity between internal printed circuit board 74 or 78 and elongated body shield 190, as required by claim 14. As pointed out by Patent Owner, elongated shield member 190 has solder tails 193–195 that electrically engage upper circuit board 74 and lower circuit board 78. See Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (reproducing Ex. 1005, Fig. 13; citing Ex. 1005, 7:3–6, 7:9–12; Ex. 2002 ¶ 102). In other words, although there is electrical connectivity between upper circuit board 74 and body shield 190, provided directly by way of solder tails 194, 195, and electrical connectivity between lower circuit board 78 and body shield 190, provided directly by way of solder tails 193, Petitioner fails to provide evidence of the disclosure of “the shielding tab configured to provide electrical connectivity between the internal printed circuit board and the body shield at a front portion of the internal printed circuit board” in Molex or Regnier. Additionally, although Petitioner points out that Molex and Regnier disclose clip 110 is configured to provide electrical connectivity to circuit board 74 at a front portion of circuit board 74 by way of grounding tab 73, Petitioner, however, does not direct us to any description in Molex or Regnier that clip 110 is configured to provide electrical connectivity between circuit board 74 and elongated body shield 190 at the front portion of circuit board 74. See Pet. 33–34, 50–51; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33, 34, 50, Figs. 10– 11; Ex. 1005, 5:4–30, 8:24–40, Figs. 10–11. Finally, although this is not disclosed in the Petition, assuming that Petitioner attempts to assert that Molex’s and Regnier’s inter-module shields 60 disclose the claimed “body shield,” in the alternative, there does not appear to be any disclosure in Molex or Regnier of inter-module shields 60 interfacing with circuit board 74, at least at a back portion of circuit board 74, to improve electrical isolation for the plurality of sets of electronic components, as required by the body shield limitation of claim 14. See Pet. 31–33, 47–49. Accordingly, based on the record before us, given the deficiencies in the Petition, we conclude that Petitioner has not established that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing independent claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Molex, or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Regnier.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner does not direct us to any description in Molex or Regnier sufficient to support a finding that clip 110 is configured to provide electrical connectivity between internal printed circuit board 74 or 78 and elongated body shield 190, as required by claim 14. As pointed out by Patent Owner, elongated shield member 190 has solder tails 193–195 that electrically engage upper circuit board 74 and lower circuit board 78. See Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (reproducing Ex. 1005, Fig. 13; citing Ex. 1005, 7:3–6, 7:9–12; Ex. 2002 ¶ 102). In other words, although there is electrical connectivity between upper circuit board 74 and body shield 190, provided directly by way of solder tails 194, 195, and electrical connectivity between lower circuit board 78 and body shield 190, provided directly by way of solder tails 193, Petitioner fails to provide evidence of the disclosure of “the shielding tab configured to provide electrical connectivity between the internal printed circuit board and the body shield at a front portion of the internal printed circuit board” in Molex or Regnier. Additionally, although Petitioner points out that Molex and Regnier disclose clip 110 is configured to provide electrical connectivity to circuit board 74 at a front portion of circuit board 74 by way of grounding tab 73, Petitioner, however, does not direct us to any description in Molex or Regnier that clip 110 is configured to provide electrical connectivity between circuit board 74 and elongated body shield 190 at the front portion of circuit board 74. See Pet. 33–34, 50–51; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33, 34, 50, Figs. 10– 11; Ex. 1005, 5:4–30, 8:24–40, Figs. 10–11. Finally, although this is not disclosed in the Petition, assuming that Petitioner attempts to assert that Molex’s and Regnier’s inter-module shields 60 disclose the claimed “body shield,” in the alternative, there does not appear to be any disclosure in Molex or Regnier of inter-module shields 60 interfacing with circuit board 74, at least at a back portion of circuit board 74, to improve electrical isolation for the plurality of sets of electronic components, as required by the body shield limitation of claim 14. See Pet. 31–33, 47–49. Accordingly, based on the record before us, given the deficiencies in the Petition, we conclude that Petitioner has not established that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing independent claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Molex, or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Regnier. D. Unpatentability of Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Molex and Zhang, and over Regnier and Zhang Claim 17 depends from claim 14. As applied by Petitioner, the teachings of Zhang do not remedy the deficiencies of Molex and Regnier discussed in the preceding section-addressing claim 14. See Pet. 51–70. Accordingly, for the same reasons as those addressing claim 14 in the preceding section, based on the record before us, Petitioner has not established that there is a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing claim 17 is unpatentable over Molex and Zhang, or unpatentable over Regnier and Zhang.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,178,318
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.