- Iriusrisk, Inc. v. Threatmodeler Software Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · IPR2023-00821 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable as anticipated by Jones; claims 2 and 4–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Jones, Zheng, and Keenan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“9 In arguing that Jones does not disclose a “predefined interrelated group” of threat model components, Patent Owner, in a footnote, alleges that the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, is “tainted by bias” arising from his “personal and professional connections” to Petitioner. PO Resp. 27 n.4; see PO Sur-reply 21–22. Patent Owner cites no authority to show that such connections necessarily render expert testimony biased, and identifies no actual testimony of Mr. Hurlbut that it alleges to be driven only by bias. On the other hand, Petitioner submits that Mr. Hurlbut also has personal and professional connections to Patent Owner—it’s a small world. See Pet. Reply 24 (“Mr. Hurlbut personally knows Mr. Agarwal, [Patent Owner’s] CEO and inventor of the ’008 patent.”). In this case, we assess the credibility of both parties’ experts based on the plausibility of and support for their testimony, and weigh such testimony accordingly. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) at 32 (“[T]he credibility of experts often turns less on demeanor and more on the plausibility of their theories.”), 35 (“The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.”); see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019).” slip op. at 37
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 10,699,008 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,699,008 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01353 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Staniford’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of industry experience,” and “would have had a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23, 25). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“We largely agree with Patent Owner that there is no explicit claim- construction dispute. We address Patent Owner’s issues of what ordinarily skilled artisans would have considered in creating and implementing packetfiltering rules in the discussion below. The preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption is one aspect that those with a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks would have considered. Nonetheless, overall, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to prevent an exfiltration operation,” does not require preventing all exfiltrations from occurring, nor allowing all non-exfiltration traffic, and that we need not consider the preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption in the context of that claim construction. We determine that no claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 15, 2024 · IPR2022-01525 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–20 are anticipated by IPUG; claims 5 and 15 are obvious over IPUG; additional Altman-based grounds also apply.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Claim 1 recites that, based on comparing flow identification data with a list of identification data, a packet associated with a match is decrypted and a “corresponding action” is taken on the decrypted packet associated a result of a match, the claim does not limit the action itself, i.e., any action is a “corresponding action” as long as that action is “associated with the match [of the] data on the list.” Id. at 18:13–16. Both parties agree that the examples of such actions in the Specification are exemplary and not limiting. See, e.g., PO Resp. 11 (“[Patent Owner] did not (and does not) attempt to limit the ‘corresponding action’ to any particular action or actions.”). The ’526 patent explicitly describes “blocking” a communication as an “action.” Id. at 6:61–66. As “allowing” a packet is the opposite of “blocking” a packet, in the context of the ’526 patent, “allowing” a packet also constitutes an “action.” Nevertheless, Patent Owner attempts to exclude allowing a packet from the scope of the claimed corresponding action by arguing that the differentiation between claim elements requires construing “performing a corresponding action” to mean more than simply allowing the packets. PO Resp. 10–11 (citing Prelim. Resp. 2, 23–24); PO Sur-reply 5–7. Patent Owner states that other claim limitations, e.g., “comparing the identified flow data with the list of the identification data” (step 1[e]), are recited separately from “performing a corresponding action on each packet of the encrypted communication flow associated with the match data on the list.” PO Sur-reply 7. Patent Owner argues that, for this reason, a construction of “performing a corresponding action” in step 1[f] that does not require some action, other than re-encrypting and transmitting the packets, renders the limitations superfluous. Id. (arguing that different claim terms are presumed to have different scope, citing CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). result. In the ’526 patent claims, the action taken on a packet in step 1[f], e.g., blocking or allowing and logging a communication as discussed in the patent, or merely allowing a communication (the opposite of blocking a communication), is an action on a decrypted packet that corresponds to a “packet of the encrypted communication flow associated with the match with data of the list” (step 1[e]). As Patent Owner acknowledges, the claims do not limit those actions. Thus, the comparing of step 1[e] and the action of allowing the transmission taken in step 1[f] are of different scope. Similarly (and consistent with Patent Owner’s analysis), the further steps of re-encrypting and transmitting the packet in step 1[g] are taken “after performing the corresponding action,” e.g., after allowing the packet, and are presumed to be of different scope from the allowing action in step 1[f]. Ex. 1001, 18:17. Re-encrypting and transmitting a packet that was previously decrypted as matched against flow identification criteria and determined to meet criteria allowing the packet to be transmitted without some other action, are not superfluous steps. Thus, as used in the claims of the ’526 patent, we determine that a “corresponding action” includes any action, including the action of allowing a further transmission of a packet, without further action.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s emphasis on indexing is misplaced. In Acceleration Bay, the court affirmed the Board’s findings that the subject reference (Lin) was not meaningfully indexed because the website allowed a user to view a list of technical reports indexed only by author or year and its advanced search form was not reliable. Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 773–74. In Blue Calypso, the court noted that there was no evidence a party could navigate from a university’s website concerning common subject matter to the reference itself, i.e., the personal webpage of Ratsimor. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1350. The facts of Acceleration Bay and Blue Calypso are distinguished from the present circumstances where Cisco’s networking products were well known to persons of ordinary skill and the reference is a page on Cisco’s own website. Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Voter Verified, the court addressed an article (Benson) posted to an on-line publication (Risks Digest) concerning the claimed subject matter (risks of computer automation), noting that Risks Digest was a prominent forum for discussing such technologies (over 100 articles relating to electronic on-line voting). Voter Verified¸ 698 F.3d at 1380–81. The article’s publication on a site interested persons of ordinary skill would have recognized as important “overcame the absence of evidence that the website at which the article was located was indexed and thereby findable by an internet search engine.” See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1349 (discussing Voter Verified); Voter Verified¸ 698 F.3d at 1380–81. In Voter Verified the court stated: The Risks Digest website was undisputedly open to any internet user by the critical date. Whether or not the website itself had been indexed by 1999 (through search engines or otherwise), the uncontested evidence indicates that a person of ordinary skill interested in electronic voting would have been independently aware of the Risks Digest as a prominent forum for discussing such technologies. And upon accessing the Risks Digest website, such an interested researcher would have found the Benson article using that website’s own search functions and applying reasonable diligence. In short, the Benson article was publicly available by the critical date and therefore qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” under § 102(b). Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1381. Dr. Prakash testified that a person of ordinary skill would have looked for product manuals and product descriptions concerning the relevant subject matter from other vendors in addition to Cisco, including BlueCoat, Sophos, Trend Micro, and Palo Alto Networks. Ex. 1002, Prakash Decl. ¶ 129. Guide provides instructions for setting up, administering, and monitoring the IronPort Web Security appliance.” Ex. 1008, 27. Where a document’s “purpose is ‘dialogue with the intended audience,’ that purpose indicates public accessibility.” Valve, 8 F.4th at 1374 (quoting Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The IPUG document bears the date of November, 2010, on its title page, as well as a copyright date of 2010. Ex. 1008, 1–2; Ex. 1010, 18–19. Although Patent Owner argues the copyright date on the document is hearsay, we do not rely solely on the reference’s copyright notice. The Wayback Machine indicates IPUG was archived before the July 24, 2017 filing date of the provisional application from which the ’526 patent claims priority. Ex. 1001 (code 60), 1:6–9; Ex. 1010, Frank-White Decl. (Ex. A), 5 (Wayback Archive Page of Dec. 29, 2103 identifying IPUG as available on Cisco’s website as of Dec. 29, 2013), 6, 8 (Wayback Archive Page listing IPUG available on Cisco’s website on March 1, 2017), 11–12 (Wayback Archive Page of March 9, 2010 identifying IPUG product).” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Patent Owner’s argument that the NMC drops the traffic after analysis and never re-encrypts is unavailing, as further evidenced by Dr. Goodrich’s deposition testimony. Altman’s NMC does not function to re-encrypt and transmit traffic, but instead uses unencrypted data from the SIA to determine whether to instruct the SIA, which functions as the Man-In-The-Middle, to block or re-encrypt and transmit packets. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 31–33; Ex. 1014, Goodrich Tr. 42:18–22 (agreeing that Altman does not describe the NMC itself as accepting or processing encrypted communications), 38:12–15 (agreeing that the SIA responds to instructions from the NMC). sufficiently that Altman at least suggests re-encrypting the decrypted traffic after performing the corresponding action as recited in claim limitations 1[f] and 1[g]. Dec. to Inst. 49–50. As discussed below, having reviewed the arguments and evidence of record, we are also persuaded that a skilled artisan would reasonably understand or infer limitation 1[g] from Altman’s disclosure. See Dayco Prods., 329 F.3d at 1368 (stating that “the dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the prior art reference’s teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference”). Patent Owner’s citation to Exhibit 1007 (Netronome) as “showing a similar out-of-band9 analysis” informs our understanding of what a person of ordinary skill would reasonably understand or infer from Altman. PO Resp. 47; Ex. 1005 ¶ 12. Netronome, incorporated into Altman by reference, discloses an embodiment for plaintext inspection of SSL-encrypted flows, using a proxy to examine and inspect the SSL-encrypted content before entering or exiting an enterprise. Ex. 1007, 2; Ex. 1005 ¶ 12. In one Netronome embodiment, each individual session terminates on the SSL inspector, but TCP connections are retained end-to-end. Ex. 1007, 6. Terminating and re-originating SSL allows the appliance to obtain plaintext in the encrypted signal that is sent to an adjacent security appliance in a regenerated TCP stream; the data remains encrypted on both the connection 9 Neither the ’526 patent nor Altman uses the term “out of band.” Ex. 1014, Goodrich Tr. 35:19–25. As to Altman, Dr. Goodrich appears to be referring to copies of data flows decrypted by the SIA and received by the NMC as “out of band” content. Id. at 46:11–16 (noting that the NMC is never disclosed as processing flows where it would be sending packets back to a destination); see also id. at 36:3–22. server. Ex. 1007, 6. Petitioner’s Altman-based challenges do not rely on Netronome,” slip op. at 56
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“The Petition asserts that IPUG discloses elements 1[f] and 1[g] because IPUG discloses that when encrypted data in an HTTPS connection are received, the appliance (1) decrypts the received encrypted data, if the URL category (the claimed “identified flow identification data”) matches the data in the Decryption Policies, (2) applies the Access Policies to the decrypted plaintext traffic, (3) if the Access Policies allow the traffic, intended destination. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008, 257, 268–69; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 224–229, 232–233).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,284,526 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,284,526 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00656 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Keenan anticipates the claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’366 patent is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all Challenged Claims of the ’366 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the earliest effective filing date of the ’366 patent: would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, mathematics, or a similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience in software development and designing or implementing threat models. Additional work or research” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we 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))). Petitioner proffers constructions for four terms, namely, (1) “third party software application,” (2) “third party diagram components,” (3) “visual representations of the threat model components,” and (4) “threat model components,” each as recited, for example, in independent claim 1. Pet. 12–14. Petitioner submits “[Patent Owner] defined [these] claim terms in the specification and file history,” “Petitioner is applying those definitions in this petition,” and “[f]or all other claim terms, Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary meaning that a [skilled artisan] would attribute to those terms.” Pet. 12. “Patent Owner submits that the Board need not engage in any pre-institution claim construction of these [four] terms.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based upon our consideration of the record at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that it is unnecessary to interpret expressly any term in the ’366 patent claims for which we institute inter partes review. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Nevertheless, we determine that briefing during the trial on the proper interpretation of certain claim terms may assist us in resolving issues presented in this case. In particular, we invite the parties to address the proper construction of “threats,” “threat model components,” “visual representations of the threat model components,” and “mapping files,” and the evidentiary support therefor. To the extent that a party proposes that such a term should have its ordinary and customary meaning, we encourage the party to explicitly identify such meaning(s) and the evidentiary support therefor.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“does not disclose the “threats” described and claimed in the ’366 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 5–7, 11–19. Based on the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we disagree and preliminarily find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing, as further discussed below. In particular, Patent Owner concedes that “Keenan discloses that color can ‘represent different types of risk (e.g., cyber, environmental, accidental, etc.),’” where Keenan displays such colors associated with objects in a topology. Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 1004, 16:40–51) (emphases added); see Ex. 1004, Fig. 7. But Patent Owner then merely concludes, without citing any factual support, that “use of a color identifying the generic nature of a risk still fails to disclose any threats associated with the risk.” Id. at 17– 18. On the other hand, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, testifies: Keenan demonstrates that its risk measurement and display includes a determination of threats where Keenan discloses a risk measurement view that uses [] color to “represent different types of risk (e.g., cyber, environmental, accidental, etc.).” [Ex. 1004], 16:40–51. [The skilled artisan] would understand that “types of risk,” as disclosed in Keenan are threats because the described examples are all types of threats (cyber, environmental, accidental). Thus, Keenan discloses threats within its risk analysis. Moreover, [the skilled artisan] would understand that risk is a function of threats exploiting vulnerabilities to obtain, damage, or destroy assets. In other words, threat modeling is used to identify risk. Ex. 1003 ¶ 79 (cited at Pet. 21–24); see id. ¶ 82 (cited at Pet. 26–28). Patent Owner disputes this testimony of Mr. Hurlbut using only attorney argument, and without telling us, for example, why Mr. Hurlbut allegedly is wrong (e.g., by explaining why specific “types” of risk do not fall within the scope of “threats” as broadly recited in claim 1, or how “risk” is not a function of “threats” in Keenan, as explained by Mr. Hurlbut). See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Moreover, although Patent Owner characterizes the “types of risk” disclosed in Keenan as identifying a “generic nature of a risk” (Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (emphasis added)), we note that “threats” is broadly recited in claim 1 with no requirement as to any level of specificity of such threats.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,366 - PTAB · Aug 7, 2023 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that Sourcefire and Emerging Threats render the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’343 Patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’343 Patent on the grounds of unpatentability raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner’s arguments. The fact that the disclosures of cited references are the same or similar is unremarkable in that they are applied against the same claims. Additionally, Patent Owner has not presented evidence that the instant Petitioner applied the prior petition, and its non-institution, as a roadmap to try and correct errors of the prior petition. As such, we agree with Petitioner that factor (1) weighs strongly against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“After reviewing the evidence, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assessment that Emerging Threats is cumulative to Stolfo, which the Examiner considered during prosecution. Patent Owner previously distinguished its claims from Stolfo by arguing, in part, that “Stolfo describes that network statistics may be used to ‘modify the decoy traffic such that it appears statistically similar to normal traffic,’” and that “Stolfo describes generating decoy traffic and not applying a transformation to existing network traffic.” Ex. 1002, 87 (quoting Ex. 2001 ¶ 124). Patent Owner also argued that “the decoy traffic used in Stolfo does not prevent an exfiltration operation[, but instead,] Stolfo explains that ‘[t]hese traps use decoy information . . . to attract, deceive, and/or confuse attackers (e.g., inside attackers, external attackers, etc.) and/or malware.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 2001 ¶ 124). In contrast, as Petitioner asserts, Emerging Threats discloses its rules to be Snort rules for preventing exfiltration. Pet. 37–43. Petitioner’s explanations of the different rules disclosed in Emerging Threats illustrate their use in preventing exfiltration, and not merely applying processes to decoy traffic. Id. Petitioner also discusses the correspondences between specific rules provided in Emerging Threats and operators disclosed in the ’343 Patent. Id. As such, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Emerging Threats is merely cumulative to Stolfo. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s combination of Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is cumulative to the art previously considered by the Examiner in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’343 Patent, or that the proposed grounds are based on the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office. In conjunction with Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner has not shown that the Office erred, we conclude that, given the circumstances presented here, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that Petitioner’s proposed grounds are based on the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office. As a result, we need not further consider whether Petitioner has shown error on the part of the Office. Accordingly, although we have considered Patent Owner’s request for our exercise of discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), on the record before us, we conclude that denial of institution on that basis is not warranted. We proceed to consider the merits of Petitioner’s proposed grounds of unpatentability below.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Weighing the evidence of the public accessibility of Emerging Threats in the relevant timeframe, we determine that Petitioner has established that Emerging Threats qualifies as a printed publication under § 102(b) for purposes of institution. The presence of the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine copy suggests that the document was available and was accessible on December 2, 2010, prior to the March 12, 2013 effective filing date of the ’343 Patent. We have concerns that Dr. Staniford is only able to vaguely assert that the rules provided in the text document appear to be true copies of the rules that existed in 2010. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 204. Given the nature of inter partes review, however, we can be concerned only with the publication itself; we cannot rely on or inquire into how some system performed or was used in the relevant timeframe. Nonetheless, we are persuaded by Dr. Staniford’s unrebutted testimony that Snort was begun as an open source project in the late 1990s, that the Bleeding Snort project launched in 2004 as an independent clearing house for Snort rules, and that the project continues as Emerging Threats. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 202–203. This testimony is sufficient, for purposes of institution, to show that one of ordinary skill in the art, at and prior to the effective filing date of the ’343 Patent, would have known to look to the Emerging Threats website for Snort rules that could be applied to conventional cyber defense systems. We determine this to be a reasonable showing, at this stage of the proceeding, that Emerging Threats was sufficiently publicly accessible to be a printed publication. With respect to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding searchability of the Emerging Threats website, given its notoriety, we are unpersuaded that persons of ordinary skill in the art proceeding to the website would not have been able to search its contents and find the rules logged thereon that would have been applicable to the users’ network security concerns. Even based on Patent Owner’s presentation of the website (Prelim. Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 1030, 11; Ex. 1054)), we are persuaded that it would only have required the exercise of reasonable diligence to find the rules list, given the knowledge that one of ordinary skill would have had regarding Emerging Threats. Petitioner asserts that specific rules can be located within Emerging Threats by searching for their unique SID (Pet. 38 n.9), but persons proceeding to the website without knowledge of a specific SID would have found this to be of little help. Nonetheless, the number of locations that the rules may be located on the Emerging Threats website is still limited and users would have been able to utilize the “Last Modified” indicator, showing which directories had been modified recently, to narrow down any search, assuming that items that had not been modified for some time would be less worthy of search. As such, we are not persuaded that persons of ordinary skill in the art, proceeding to the Emerging Threats website, would not have been able to have searched its contents and find the rules contained thereon.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCInstitutedPTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2023-00118 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Rosenberger and obviousness over Rosenberger and Basye.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“detailed, comprehensive, and substantive analysis. See Pet. 22–50. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and arguments, and for purposes of this Decision, based on the evidence and arguments before us, we determine for the reasons stated in the Petition (See Pet. 22–50) that the evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are unpatentable. a) Conclusion for Claims 1, 9, and 16 Based on the arguments and evidence in the record before us, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are anticipated by Rosenberger.” slip op. at 37
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Based on the evidence of record, we determine for purposes of this Decision, that (1) the lack of any substantive analysis or discussion of Rosenberger in the examination of the application that matured into the ’398 patent, (2) the prominent role of Rosenberger in this large family of related patents, (3) the double patenting rejection establishing a close relationship between the claims of the ’398 patent and claims that were rejected based on Rosenberger in the ’752 patent, (4) the failure to provide a “suitable” (see MPEP § 1302.14. IV(D), substantive reason why the claims were allowed, and (5) our determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that Rosenberger anticipates several claims in the ’398 patent collectively support Petitioner’s assertion that the Examiner overlooked specific material disclosures in Rosenberger. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8–9 n.9 (“An example of a material error may include . . . overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.”).” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2-4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–63). Dr. Johnson’s Declaration testimony states he considered some of the factors listed above. Ex. 1002 ¶ 61. Dr. Johnson “also considered [his] own experiences working and teaching in the fields of voice and audio processing.” Id. Dr. Johnson testifies that, in his opinion, the level of ordinary skill is as stated by Petitioner. Id. at 62. Patent Owner does not assert a level of ordinary skill, nor does Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See, Prelim. Resp., generally. For purposes of this Decision, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’398 patent, and Dr. Johnson’s undisputed testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill.8” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states, “the Challenged Claims do not require construction.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner does not propose, or comment on, any claim construction. See, generally Prelim. Resp. We do not perceive the need to construe any claim limitation. Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also 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 the claim preambles here where the construction is not ‘material to the [obviousness] dispute.’” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,134,398 - PTAB · Apr 17, 2023 · IPR2022-01525 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized 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.” Taking into account the arguments and evidence presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’526 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“includes “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Based on the current record, we find that there is a reasonable likelihood that IPUG was publicly accessible before the earliest possible priority date of the ’526 patent, July 24, 2017.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“this proceeding.” Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner notes that in the related ITC proceeding, the parties agreed that the term “flow identification data” means “identification data that identifies a communication flow.” Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe the term “flow identification data” because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Patent Owner asserts that “no other express construction of any term is required to resolve any controversies” at this preliminary stage of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6. Nonetheless, as discussed below in Section III.C.4.f, in the context of its patentability analysis, Patent Owner raises an implicit claim construction argument regarding the claim term “performing a corresponding action” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. See Prelim. Resp. 22–24. Although Patent Owner’s argument raises an issue of claim construction, the issue is closely related to the issue of whether IPUG discloses “performing a corresponding action” recited in claims 1 and 11. Thus, we address this issue in the context of the patentability discussion in Section III.C.4.f below. Apart from this term, no other claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Starting with the claim language, claim 1 recites “performing a corresponding action on each packet of the encrypted communication flow.” Ex. 1001, 18:12–14. The claim recites broadly “performing a corresponding action” and does not require, at least not explicitly, any additional action to the traffic after allowing, such as “logging and capturing” or “applying some transformation.” In addition, the claim recites “performing a corresponding action on . . . the encrypted communication flow,” not on decrypted plaintext packet of the allowed traffic. Thus, at least based on the claim language, we are not persuaded at this time “performing a corresponding action” should be limited as Patent Owner contends.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,284,526 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCInstitutedPTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01594 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–13, and 15 on all challenged grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Rosenberger anticipates at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioners cannot satisfy their burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Because the Petition “presents to the Office the same or substantially the same art previously presented to the Office,” we turn to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework and consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) in determining “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 7–8, 10. With regard to the alleged error, the Petition states, “[b]ecause the Examiner did not substantively evaluate Rosenberger during prosecution of the ’128 Patent and assumed that the allowed claims required a limitation not found in the claims, the Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability.” Pet. 11. Specifically, the Petitioner argues, “the Examiner incorrectly assumed that the allowed claims required each of the claimed ‘plurality of electronic devices’ to operate in a ‘low power state.’ But the allowed claims do not recite such a limitation.” Id. We find this argument persuasive. In discussing the art including Rosenberger, the Examiner stated: [T]he combination of A-BB taken in any order fails to teach or suggest the complex claim limitations as a whole. It is clear that even if the server is a second device and in a semi-sleep state e.g. monitor off, fucnationally [sic] as a sleep state, the system still requires the first device and not the second server device 885 based vocie [sic] response 850 to process the voice command as shown in fig. 8B . . . in element 830. At best it will compartmentalize different low power states only on the first device. . . . Therefore the combination taken in any order fails to teach or suggest the complex claims as a whole. Ex. 1004, 11–12 (emphasis added); see also id. at 10 (the Examiner finding that the prior art discloses a “[s]emi-sleep state whic[h] can only process commands on mobile device” (emphasis omitted)). None of the claims of the ’128 patent recite a server, semi-sleep state, or low power state. Ex. 1001, 35:54–38:28. The Examiner never identified any limitation that distinguished the claims of the ’128 patent from the prior art (including Rosenberger) or specifically explained what recitation of the claims makes them patentable. See id. at 6–13. It was material error to rely on limitations not present in the claims in allowing the claims. And, as shown above, there is a reasonable likelihood that Rosenberger discloses the methods and devices recited in the allowed claims. We find that the Examiner erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. For these reasons, we believe it is not appropriate to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution.8” slip op. at 34
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a “POSITA [(person of ordinary skill in the art)] in the technology field of the ’128 Patent would have had the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2–4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 (Johnson Decl.), ¶¶ 63–65.). Patent Owner does not present a position on the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’128 patent and the cited prior art. In order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.4” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“B. Legal Standards In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference, it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Anticipation “requires that every element and limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in possession of the invention.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1267–69 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,812,128 - Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01215 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–15, 17, 18, and 21–24 are unpatentable over Yoshimura-based grounds; claims 6, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner offers an assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of the time the ’655 patent was filed. Pet. 9. For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant “adopt the [following] definition for the person of ordinary skill in the art”: “a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, and has either received academic credits for an ASIC design course or completed at least one year of work experience in the VLSI design, electronic design automation for VLSI, or ASIC design fields.” Id. at 9–10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (Robins Declaration). Patent Owner applies the same definition. Resp. 5. To the extent necessary, we accept this definition because it is supported by the Robins Declaration and consistent with the ’655 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Although the phrase “separate from,” is not found in the claims, we look to the language of the claims, the description in the patent disclosure, and the prosecution history to determine what type of separateness is required by the claims. We start with the relied-upon Figure 4 of the ’655 patent, which illustrates a box labeled “Multi-Scenario ECO Database 426” that is near, but not overlapping with or surrounding, boxes labeled “Image 424” through “Image 422” and “Image 420.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 4. The ’655 patent also describes a storage device 408 as “storing scenario images 420– 424 that correspond to different scenarios,” and “can additionally store multi-scenario ECO database 426,” which “can include circuit information for multiple scenarios that can be used to estimate the impact of ECOs in multiple scenarios.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–11, 5:18–21.” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“determin[e/ing . . . ] an ECO to fix one or more design requirement violations, wherein said determining includes identifying an ECO to fix a design requirement violation in the scenario and checking that ECO against at least some of the multiple scenarios by estimating parameter values based on parameter values stored in the scenario image and the multi-scenario ECO database. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001, 21-24). In reviewing the term, the District Court explained that the multi- scenario ECO database “stores parameters and allows for a quick estimation of an ECO’s impact across multiple scenarios.” Ex. 2001, 19. The District Court further summarized the ’655 patent as describing that a scenario image is “[f]irst” loaded, and if there is a design requirement violation, an ECO is determined for that scenario, and then subsequent scenarios are loaded to check whether the ECO from the first scenario will create new, or exacerbate existing, design violations. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:21–33). However, as recognized by the Court, the process at the cited section is described in the ’655 patent as an “approach [that] may take an impracticably long time to fix design requirement violations in multiple scenarios” due to the long time that is required to load a scenario image. Id. at 24; Ex. 1001, 4:43–47. The Court reasoned that in order to determine an ECO to fix a violation, “determine” must involve “identifying” a possible fix and “checking” whether that fix is suitable. Id. at 23. Thus, the District Court’s construction requires both identifying and checking as part of the claimed determining step. Id. at 23–24. We agree with the District Court’s reasoning, and apply their construction in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner assertion that Yoshimura’s estimation in step S5 is performed to check an identified ECO is supported by the record. In determining the change to be made (the ECO), Yoshimura uses estimated parameters for the third and fourth corner conditions, calculated in step S5 through the “Hold Margin” equation. Ex. 1007, 6:63–67. Those third and fourth corner conditions are then used to check potential layouts identified in step S6. Id. at 7:18–20 (“In step S6, the automatic EC device 16 searches for a layout that does not cause a timing error under any one of the first to fourth comer conditions from the analysis results of step S4 and step S5.”). In this manner, step S5 sets an initial third corner condition having estimated parameter values that is included, as the initial step, in checking an identified ECO at steps S6–S8. Thus, Yoshimura’s determination of a change to satisfy the corner conditions is, to use Dr. Edward’s phrase, “based on” its third and fourth corner conditions having parameters estimated in step S5. For this reason, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Yoshimura discloses the claimed limitation.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,407,655 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,407,655 - PTAB · Nov 29, 2022 · IPR2022-01067 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 8, 10–19, and 23–25 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“. . . the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure, 3 (footnote omitted; citing Sotera). In other words, under the Interim Procedure, a petitioner may avoid discretionary denial of the petition based on a parallel district court litigation by providing a Sotera-style stipulation. The Interim Procedure does not, however, make a Sotera-style stipulation a prerequisite for institution. Under our informative precedent, an inter partes review may be instituted despite the absence of a Sotera-style stipulation. Sand Revolution at 12 n.5 (instituting inter partes review notwithstanding the absence of a stipulation not pursue any ground that could have been reasonably raised in an inter partes review). We find that Petitioner’s stipulation (Ex. 1018) is the same as the one in Sand Revolution, where the petitioner stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, the petitioner will not pursue the same grounds in the district court litigation. Sand Revolution at 11–12. In that case, the panel held that petitioner’s stipulation “mitigates to some degree the concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board as well as concerns of potentially conflicting decisions” and that Fintiv factor 4 “weighs marginally in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” Id. at 12.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). After considering the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, and we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution. Therefore, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) “would have had a Master’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent field and two years of academic or industry experience working with error correction in memory devices.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). For purposes of the preliminary response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 18. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“what it means to “partially decode.” Prelim. Resp. 14–15. We disagree. Although the sentence describes the function of a decoder module, it does not describe what it means to decode (or partially decode) encoded data. We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it replaces the claim language “decode the received encoded data to generate a plurality of partially decoded data streams” with a sentence from the Specification that does not describe “decod[ing]” or “partially decoded.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction fails to capture the meanings of these words. Instead, it merely replaces the claim term “decode” with the broader term “process.” We agree with Patent Owner, however, that “decode” requires more than just buffering. The Specification twice mentions buffering. Ex. 1001, 6:11–14 (quoted above); id. at 6:46–50 (“[E]ncoded data may be read from a set of one or more of sectors . . . by a decoder sub-module . . . and processed (e.g., buffered, de-interleaved, decoded to some extent, etc.) to generate a data stream.”) In each instance, buffering is disclosed along with de-interleaving and decoding as actions performed by a decoder module or submodule. Nowhere does the Specification define “decode” to mean “buffer” or “de-interleave.” Patent Owner does not dispute the portion of Petitioner’s construction that defines “decode” to mean “distinguish error correction bits from information bits.” Pet. 14–15. Both parties rely on Patent Owner’s district court infringement contentions, where Patent Owner asserted that the disputed claim limitation is met by the accused products in part because “[a]t a minimum, the ECC bits will be identified, distinguished from, and Resp. 15.7 Neither party directs us to intrinsic evidence to support this definition of “decode.” Nevertheless, because this portion of Petitioner’s proposed construction is undisputed at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt it for purposes of our Decision. Accordingly, we construe the phrase “decode the received encoded data” to mean “distinguish error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data.” Although the term may not be limited to this meaning, no other acceptable definition has been presented on this record. At this stage of the proceeding, we do not construe the phrase “to generate a plurality of partially decoded data streams” because neither party has proposed a construction for that portion of the claim language.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,615,700
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.