- Early Warning Services, LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 11, 2026 · IPR2024-01221 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39–41, and 43 unpatentable because the cited grounds did not establish the required …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“image capture device” refers to an imaging-based barcode reader and not a laser-based barcode scanner because we are persuaded that claim language and Specification support that interpretation and also because Patent Owner persuasively shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term as such. Claim 1 recites an “image capture device configured to capture an image.” Ex. 1001, 16:24–25. The plain meaning of the claim term requires that the image be captured, not just scanned. The claim further requires “generating an output based on the information embedded in the image,” requiring that information is retrieved from the captured image. Id. at 16:32–33. A device that does not capture an image is not an “image capture device” under the plain language of the claim. A laser-based barcode scanner employs light reflected from a laser beam to “generate an electrical signal that corresponds to the bars and spaces in the barcode being scanned.” See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining in detail how laser-based barcode self-emitting a laser light across a code to be scanned, with a sensor tuned to capture the reflected light from the laser.”). It simply does not capture an image. slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. The field of the ’167 patent “relates generally to secure transactions, and more specifically, to methods and devices for providing secure identification, verification, and authorization using a portable secure device.” Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. The ’167 patent seeks “to provide methods and devices that are capable of providing secure transactions in a more efficient manner.” Id. at 3:11–13. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our patentability analysis would be the same under Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Wang fails to disclose limitation 1[a]. Wang discloses a portable electronic authorization device (PEAD) that can be used as a self-checkout terminal. Ex. 1004 ¶ 115. In this context, Wang discloses By entering the UPC code or barcode using keypad on the PEAD or scanning in the UPC code or barcode using the input device built into the PEAD such as a barcode scanner or OCR reader, the PEAD can generate the receipt with the list of item prices through the wireless network and Internet by querying the item price using the barcode as the index for price lookup table which is Stored in a Server System. Id. (emphasis added). As discussed above (Section III.C.1), we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the claimed “image capture device” refers to an imaging-based device and not a laser-based barcode scanner. Petitioner does not contend that Wang’s disclosure of the barcode scanner necessarily refers to an imaging-based device, but argues that Wang’s disclosure is sufficient because “both imaging-based barcode scanners and laser-based barcode scanners constitute image capture devices.” Reply 11. In light of our claim construction above, we disagree.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang and Drummond. Pet. 30–43. 1. Drummond Drummond is a patent titled “Automated Banking Machine System and Method,” and “relates to an automated banking machine apparatus and system that are capable of use in a wide area network, and which provides a user with a remote electronic receipt or other record related to a transaction performed at the machine.” Ex. 1008, code (54), ¶ 2. Drummond discloses that its automated banking machine, may “initiate the sending of a non-paper transaction receipt to the customer,” “[t]he receipt may be sent using a wide area network, such as the Internet,” and “[t]he receipt may be an electronic receipt, for example a receipt in the form of an e-mail message.” Id. ¶ 247. 2. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 For this obviousness ground, Petitioner relies on the same arguments and evidence as its Ground 1a (anticipation by Wang), discussed above, for the majority of claim limitations. See Pet. 33–43. Importantly, Petitioner relies solely on Wang as teaching independent claim limitations [1a], [23a], and [43b] relating to an image capture device and embedded information. Pet. 36, 41, 43. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to Ground 1a, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Wang and Drummond.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 7,314,167 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,314,167 - Iriusrisk, Inc. v. Threatmodeler Software Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00656 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Keenan did not disclose the claimed stored threats, and the obviousness combinations did not establish the mapping limitations or a reason to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“construction of “threat,” which we find in the context of the ’366 patent does not encompass “risk.” See supra § III.D.3.a.1 (discussing “‘Threats’ versus ‘Risks’”). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s premise that “risk” includes “threats” or knowing risk allows for determination of threats is false, and belied by the parties’ experts who do not disagree on this distinction, namely that “risk” is not a “threat,” but rather represents the likelihood of a threat occurring compounded by the impact of such a threat on a given system (discussed above). See Ex. 2002, 24:3–25:5, 31:5–33:2 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, agreeing that “Risk = Likelihood x Impact”); Ex. 2009 ¶ 80; PO Sur-reply 9–10. Thus, we find unavailing Petitioner’s attempt to walk backwards from Keenan’s explicit disclosure of “risk” modeling into an anticipatory (explicit) disclosure of stored “threats” that may give rise to such risk. Viewing Keenan in the light agreed upon by the parties’ experts, where “risk” is a product of the “likelihood” of a threat occurring and the “impact” of such a threat on a given system, persuades us that although Keenan discloses “risk,” “types of risk,” and “risk ranking” (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 16:21–63), Keenan uses such “risk” as a given value without explicitly disclosing any underlying stored threats or use thereof. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 112 (“Keenan does not disclose a system for measuring risk. The risk for objects is determined before the objects are imported into the [Integrated Object Environment]. Keenan does not make that measurement.”). Indeed, in order to “store” “threats” in “one or more databases” as recited in claim 1, such “threats” must be identified (i.e., known) at some level of specificity to the system. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that Keenan explicitly discloses using “threats” or “storing” an identified “threat,” let alone storing such “threat” in a database along with its association with a particular threat model component, and even more so with a threat model component that itself is correlated with a third-party diagram component as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’366 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Hurlbut (Ex. 1003 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“43:21–61. Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments (Pet. Reply 3–5), this “subset” feature shows that the “threats” stored in databases in claim 1 represent “potential events” that may or may not occur depending on the composition of a given system undergoing threat modeling—a system may implicate all stored threats, some of them, or even just one of them, leaving the remaining stored threats for use in preparing threat models for other systems. See PO Sur-reply 2–3 (discussing Figure 2 and arguing that “not every threat is necessarily included in the threat model”). We find the claim language itself supports interpreting “threats” as “potential events that, if they occur, can cause adverse effects to a target system.”” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Claim 1 recites, in part, “the one or more mapping files correlating the threat model components with [“third party diagram components”].” Ex. 1001, 43:30–35. Generally, from the standpoint of what claim 1 requires, the parties’ views of “mapping file” are in alignment. Claim 1 plainly recites that a “mapping file” (where a “file” in the context of computer systems is data itself) correlates data A with data B, and when construed in the context of the subject claim language, correlates threat model components (i.e., data A) with third party diagram components (i.e., data B). We find that this interpretation of “mapping files” is sufficient to resolve the controversy between the parties. See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 10,713,366 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,366 - Kioxia Corporation / Kioxia America, Inc. v. Viasat, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01067 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 8, 10–19, and 23–25 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not disclose the claimed decoding and forwarding functions, and the proposed modifications were not adequately supported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“similar, and we adopt parts of each party’s description of a POSITA’s education and experience. We agree with Patent Owner that computer engineering and computer science are relevant fields of study. PO Resp. 3. Our finding is supported by the ’700 Patent, which describes systems, devices, methods, and software for forward error correction for a flash memory system, which may be integrated with a computer, server, or other computing device. Ex. 1001, 3:23–30. Although Dr. Koralek testifies that an undergraduate education would not have been sufficient for a person to acquire ordinary skill in the art relating the ’700 Patent (Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 7–9), that testimony does not adequately account for the knowledge relating to error correction a person could acquire through practical experience. For this reason, we agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Bagherzadeh that a bachelor of science is the appropriate level of education. PO Resp. 3; Ex. 2022 ¶ 31. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that a POSITA’s experience would have been limited to “hardware implementation.” PO Resp. 3. Our finding is supported by the ’700 Patent, which states that “embodiments may be implemented by hardware, software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description languages, or any combination thereof.” Ex. 1001, 10:26–28. For these reasons, we find that a POSITA would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two years of academic or industry experience in the design, development, or research of error correction in memory devices.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“mentioned in the Specification. In each instance, buffering is disclosed along with de-interleaving and decoding as actions performed by a decoder module or sub-module. The Specification’s disclosure that a decoder module can buffer data does not mean that buffering alone can constitute decoding. Nowhere does the Specification define “decode” to mean just “buffer.” The Specification’s use of the disjunctive, “or,” to connect these words (Ex. 1001, 6:11–14) is not enough to redefine the word “decode” to encompass buffering alone. Petitioner agrees that “[t]he ’700 Patent does not define the word ‘decode.’” Pet. Reply 2. “Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims.” Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are ‘exacting.’” Id. (quoting GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In this case, defining “decode” to encompass mere buffering would be a departure from the plain and ordinary meaning of the term as understood by a POSITA. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Koralek, agrees that, “aside from the ’700 patent, what a person of ordinary skill would understand decode to mean, it would not be just buffering. Decoding might include buffering, but buffering by itself would not be considered decoding to a person of ordinary skill.” Ex. 2023, 73:14–20. As Petitioner recognizes, “it is undisputed that ‘decoding’ is the opposite of ‘encoding.’” Pet. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1019, 56:5–11); see also PO Resp. 7 (“The plain meaning of ‘decode’ implies undoing or reversing some prior encoding.”). This undisputed meaning is supported by the expert testimony, as well as dictionary definitions provided” slip op. at 14
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“ECC bits on a page-level rather than by sector was known before the ’700 Patent” and relies on Dr. Koralek’s opinion that “page-level encoding would have been an obvious implementation in view of Lee’s teachings.” Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1024 ¶ 45. Petitioner’s contention presents a new theory of unpatentability based on new evidence11 that exceeds the proper scope of a reply brief under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). For that reason, we need not consider it.12 Petitioner’s contention is not persuasive in any event. The challenge before us is anticipation, not obviousness. Petitioner’s new theory is not enough to show that Lee “must necessarily” distinguish error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data, as asserted in the Petition (Pet. 22) and required by our claim construction. 11 The new evidence includes Exhibit 1021 and paragraphs 45 to 47 of Dr. Koralek’s supplemental testimony, Exhibit 1024. 12 Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (stating “the Board acts within its discretion when it declines under section 42.23(b) to consider a new theory of unpatentability raised for the first time in reply” and holding that petitioner’s reply argument that a claim limitation would have been an obvious modification was a “meaningfully distinct contention” from the petition’s argument that the limitation was taught by the reference and that the new theory was not within the scope of a proper reply); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s decision not to consider an argument made on reply because in the original petition the challenger argued only that a reference disclosed a limitation, while in the reply the challenger argued that a relevant artisan would have considered it obvious to modify that reference to arrive at the limitation).” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, we construe the phrase, “decode the received encoded data,” to mean “distinguish error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data.” We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Lee’s page buffer 504 performs this function. Pet. 22. Petitioner identifies Lee’s page buffer 504 as the “decoding module” of claim 1 (Pet. 20–21), but does not show that page buffer 504 decodes the received encoded data by distinguishing error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,615,700 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,615,700 - Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00343 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–3, 6–14, 18, 19, 21–27, and 29–37 not shown unpatentable because Conwell did not disclose a non-exhaustive search and Ghias and Philyaw did not teach one.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“exhaustive, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. PO Resp. 23– 32. Patent Owner argues that Conwell teaches identifying a match using a look-up table, but the process is not disclosed to be non-exhaustive. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1009, 3:43–44, 5:59–61, Fig. 3; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 364–366). Patent Owner additionally argues that “[w]hile there are ways to search the lookup table disclosed in Conwell using a non-exhaustive approach, Conwell does not disclose any such non-exhaustive approach.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 369). We agree that Conwell does not explicitly disclose that the look-up is performed non-exhaustively. Further, Patent Owner argues that Conwell also does not inherently disclose using the look-up table to conduct a non-exhaustive search. Id. at 27–31. Patent Owner continues that “Conwell provides no details as to how the exact-match search between the hashed identifier of the work to be identified and the hashed identifiers in the reference database is actually performed.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1009, 3:43–62). Patent Owner argues that Conwell details how its database is maintained, but does not provide specific disclosures as to how the database is searched. Id. at 31–32. We also agree that Conwell does not inherently disclose that the look-up is performed nonexhaustively.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“As Patent Owner points out, the second search of the identified matches is performed exhaustively of Works A, C, D, and E. Tr. 40–43 (citing Ex. 1010 7:4–9; Ex. 2005 ¶ 288; Ex. 2006, 325:12–21, 336:12–22). If viewed as separate and independent searches, both would be exhaustive of the data set being searched, and if viewed as a single search, all of the initially input records of the data set (i.e., Works A–E) would be searched by that single search, making it exhaustive. As such, we agree that Ghias does not teach or suggest a non-exhaustive search, as recited in the independent claims. Petitioner responds that Ghias’s subsequent searches are non- exhaustive (Reply 13–14), but we have addressed the same in the prior paragraph, not finding it to be persuasive. Petitioner also argues that the queries from the “first” and “second” searches need not be the same, and in fact would likely be different, such that the results for the first query could exclude non-matches from the results, where those non-matches would be matches for the second query, so that the subsequent search for the second query would not consider these excluded references. Id. at 14. We are not persuaded, however, as the search would still be exhaustive to the dataset provided to the search algorithm. As discussed above, we construe “non-exhaustive search” as “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” We are not persuaded that simply because a search does not seek matches outside of its input records would make that search non-exhaustive; that would make every search non-exhaustive, because it is, by definition, limited to the records input or available to the search algorithm. Petitioner also argues that Ghias discloses that its string matching algorithms operate faster than a brute force search (Reply 14–15), but we are persuaded, as discussed above, that this disclosure is related to comparing a work with a single record in the database, and not with respect to all of the records in the database. Petitioner also argues that Ghias discloses that performance may be improved by “packing all the songs into one file,” whereby the non-exhaustive searching within a record would apply to all of the concatenated record, making the search of the records non-exhaustive. Id. at 15. With respect to this latter argument, we agree with Patent Owner that this represents a “new theory” of the ground than that established in the Petition. Paper 24, 1–2. Compare Pet. 47–48, with Reply 14–15. We will not consider such new arguments for the purposes of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 2016 WL 2620512, at *8–9 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (concluding the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“i.e., exhaustive and non-exhaustive, and that “one would have envisaged a ‘non-exhaustive’ search as the predominant form of ‘database query,’” such that Conwell discloses the elements of the claims in substance. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 371; In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We do not agree. Instead, we find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Karypis that exhaustive methods may be employed to perform the database lookup in Conwell, and that Conwell does not disclose any non-exhaustive approach. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 367–369. Although Petitioner alleges that Dr. Karypis’s declaration “is replete with attorney argument presented in the guise of expert testimony,” and thus entitled to little weight (Reply 19), we find no fault with his specific review and interpretation of Conwell, and we are persuaded that it demonstrates that the lookup processes in Conwell need not be non-exhaustive.” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“With respect to this latter argument, we agree with Patent Owner that this represents a “new theory” of the ground than that established in the Petition. Paper 24, 1–2. Compare Pet. 47–48, with Reply 14–15. We will not consider such new arguments for the purposes of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 2016 WL 2620512, at *8–9 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (concluding the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 8,640,179 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,640,179 - Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00347 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–17, 21–28, 31–33, 38, 51, and 52 were not shown unpatentable because Ghias and Iwamura did not disclose the claimed non-exhaustive search.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Ghias discloses “a non- exhaustive search identifying a neighbor,” as recited in independent claim 15. Claims 16, 17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 depend from claim 15. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Ghias discloses each and every limitation of claims 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ghias anticipates 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 of the ’988 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15–446, slip op. at 13 (U.S. June 20, 2016). In our Institution Decision, we construed “a non-exhaustive search” to mean “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” Dec. 7. We disagreed with Petitioner’s view that a search that conducts a comparison with all possible matches is nevertheless non-” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Ghias discloses “a non- exhaustive search identifying a neighbor,” as recited in independent claim 15. Claims 16, 17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 depend from claim 15. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Ghias discloses each and every limitation of claims 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ghias anticipates 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 of the ’988 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“With respect to its contention that claims 22, 24–26, and 52 would have been obvious over Ghias, Petitioner does not present any additional analysis of the recited “non-exhaustive search” beyond that addressed above in connection with claim 15. Therefore, for the same reasons, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 22, 24–26, and 52 are unpatentable for obviousness over Ghias.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 8,010,988 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,010,988 - Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00348 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, 18, 19, 21–27, 29, and 30 were not shown unpatentable because neither Conwell nor Ghias and Philyaw disclosed the claimed non-exhaustive neighbor search.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15–446, slip op. at 13 (U.S. June 20, 2016). In our Institution Decision, we construed “a non-exhaustive . . . search” to mean “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” Dec. 7. We disagreed with Petitioner’s view that a search that conducts a comparison with all possible matches is nevertheless non-exhaustive if it does not compare all data within all possible matches. Id.” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelOther
“demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference either expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim. Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., 605 F.3d 967, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“two species—exhaustive and non-exhaustive—and a skilled artisan “would have envisaged a ‘non-exhaustive’ search as the predominant form of ‘database query.’” Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 371). Therefore, according to Petitioner, Conwell discloses a non-exhaustive search in substance. Id. (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We do not agree. Instead, we find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Karypis that the database look-up in Conwell may use exhaustive methods, and Conwell does not disclose any non-exhaustive approach. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 367– 69. Although Petitioner alleges that Dr. Karypis’s declaration is entitled to little weight because it “is replete with attorney argument presented in the guise of expert testimony,” Pet. Reply 19, we are persuaded that his analysis of Conwell demonstrates that the look-up processes disclosed in Conwell need not be non-exhaustive. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Conwell discloses “a non-exhaustive neighbor search,” as recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 25. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8–12, 14, 19, 21–24, 26, and 30 each depend from one of the independent claims and thus also include this limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Conwell discloses each and every limitation of claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, 19, 21–26, and 30. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Conwell anticipates claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, 19, 21–26, and 30 of the ’441 patent.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“recitation of claim limitations. Pet. Reply 9. Further, Petitioner contends, at the time the ’441 patent was filed, “it was at least ‘probable’ that one skilled in the art would use a non-exhaustive lookup to conduct a database query.” Id. However, the fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even if it would have been trivial to perform the look-up in Conwell using a non-exhaustive process, such a possible application does not demonstrate that Conwell expressly or inherently discloses a non-exhaustive search, as is required for anticipation.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 8,656,441 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,656,441 - Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Imation CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2016 · IPR2015-00066 · APJ Kerry Begley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 10–13 and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Yen, and claim 14 was not shown unpatentable over Yen and Yu, because Petitioner failed to prove the claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We see no meaningful difference in the substance of each expert’s opinion regarding the education required to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. As to work experience, however, we agree with Dr. Wolfe that only two to four years of relevant experience is required to be a person of ordinary skill in the art, rather than four years as proposed by Dr. Fernald.3 Accordingly, based on our review of the ’188 patent, the problems and solutions described in the patent, the prior art involved in this proceeding, and the testimony of the parties’ experts, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had: (1) the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science or other four-year degree in electrical engineering, and (2) two to four years of practical experience related to memory storage devices and relevant industry standards. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, [57], 1:5–9, 2:1–10, 5:15–28, 12:22–38, 12:56–13:9, 13:39–14:6.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“A claim term will be interpreted more narrowly than its ordinary and customary meaning only under two circumstances: (1) the “patentee sets out a definition and acts as [its] own lexicographer,” or (2) the “patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Such redefinition or disavowal may be explicit or implicit. See Trs. of Columbia Univ. of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363–64 & n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“The specification’s depiction of a boundary or line between the host connector and the housing in these figures and reference to the host connector in Figure 2 as protruding from the housing, however, do not suffice to limit the claim language. See, e.g., Aventis, 675 F.3d at 1330 (“[I]t is . . . not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit a claim term beyond its ordinary meaning.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Anchor Wall Sys., 340 F.3d at 1306–07 (“[T]he mere fact that the patent drawings depict a particular embodiment of the patent does not operate to limit the claims to that specific configuration.”). As Patent Owner concedes, this boundary between the host connector and housing is not discussed or mentioned in the specification. See Tr. 43:18–44:1. Moreover, the specification describes each figure as merely “exemplary.” Ex. 1001, 3:34–52, 4:43–45; see Reply 5. Other relevant statements in the specification echo the claim language “host connector protruding from the housing” without providing any additional guidance on the meaning of the phrase. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:31– 32, 2:54–55. Further, Petitioner represents that the specification does not include any detail regarding the manufacturing of the host connector and the housing that would limit the scope of the relevant claim language, and we see no such discussion in our review of the specification. Reply 4 n.2; Wolfe Reply Decl. ¶ 17; Tr. 18:13–15. In sum, we conclude that the ’188 patent specification lacks the clarity required to demonstrate that the patentee intended to redefine the claim language or disavow the claim scope. Turning to the prosecution history, we agree with Petitioner’s representation that the prosecution history provides no amendments or arguments that would inform the meaning of the “host connector protruding from the housing” limitation. See Ex. 2007; Reply 5 n.3. Thus, the prosecution history also does not evidence a disavowal of claim scope. Accordingly, we conclude that the patentee of the ’188 patent did not” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“embodiment of Yen anticipates claims 10–13 and 20 suffer from several deficiencies. First, under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), a petition is required to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Our rules further address the showing required in a petition. In particular, 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) provides that “[t]he petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon,” and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) adds that the Petition must “identify[] specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) states that a petition “must include . . . [a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” We determine that the Petition falls short of satisfying these statutory and regulatory requirements with regard to the first embodiment of Yen. The Petition never identifies any element of Yen’s first embodiment that corresponds to or discloses the “housing” and “memory in the housing” recited in claim 10. See Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1001, 13:39. For these limitations, the Petition identifies only elements of the second embodiment of Yen and does not include any citations to the first embodiment. See Pet. 21–22. In addition, although the Petition does identify elements of Yen’s first embodiment that allegedly correspond to the recited “device connector” and “host connector”—element 74, which is not named in Yen, and connector 72, respectively—the only proffered support is a citation to Figure 4 of Yen. See id. at 22–24; Ex. 1002, 4:24–32, Fig. 4. For example, for the “host connector” limitation, requiring “a host connector protruding from the housing, the host connector conforming to a host connection standard and allowing access to the memory upon insertion of the host connector into a computer interface compatible with the host connection standard,” Ex. 1001, 13:46–14:2, the Petition includes no argument, analysis, or explanation alleging how Yen’s connector 72 satisfies this claim language, see Pet. 23–24. Similarly, for dependent claims 11 and 12, the Petition lacks any relevant citation or explanation addressing how Yen’s element 74 meets the specific device connection standards recited in each of these claims. See id. at 25–27; Ex. 1001, 14:7–23; Tr. 15:1–16:14. Even considering the declaration of Dr. Wolfe, submitted in support of the Petition, Petitioner fares no better. In analyzing the challenged claims, Dr. Wolfe refers to Yen’s first embodiment only for the final limitation of claim 10, reciting “a cover to cover the host connector, wherein the housing and the cover collectively define a form factor of the memory card that substantially conforms to a form factor of the memory card standard.” Wolfe Decl. ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 12, Fig. 4); Ex. 1001, 14:3– 6. He similarly refers to the same disclosure once in his “[b]ackground” or “overview” of Yen. See Wolfe Decl. ¶¶ 51, 54 (citing Ex. 1002, 4:27–29, Fig. 4), 55. Dr. Wolfe does not refer to any other disclosure of Yen’s first embodiment. Nor does Dr. Wolfe identify any other element of Yen’s first embodiment as corresponding to or disclosing any other limitation of claims 10–13 and 20. See id. ¶¶ 56–75. For example, for the “housing” and “host connector protruding from the housing” limitations of claim 10, Dr. Wolfe does not identify any element of Yen’s first embodiment as disclosing these limitations and does not present any opinion regarding how Yen’s first embodiment satisfies the claim language. See id. ¶¶ 57, 60. Based on the deficiencies addressed above, we determine the Petition fails: (1) to specify sufficiently where each limitation of claims 10–13 and 20 are found in the first embodiment of Yen, (2) to identify sufficiently specific supporting portions of Yen’s first embodiment, and (3) to provide an adequately detailed explanation of the significance of any cited evidence or elements in the first embodiment. Therefore, the Petition fails to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) for any alleged assertion that the first embodiment of Yen anticipates claims 10–13 and 20. Accordingly, the Petition does not allege adequately anticipation by Yen based on Yen’s first embodiment.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 6,890,188 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,890,188
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.