• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Corteva Agriscience LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01014 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not show claims 1–8 unpatentable because they are entitled to the 2004 priority date, making Barbour unavailable as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “For a claim to a biological material, the enablement requirement of § 112, first paragraph, does not require such assured access to a microorganism deposit as of the filing date; what is required is assurance of access (to the microorganism culture by the public upon issuance of a patent on the application) prior to or during the pendency of the application, so that, upon issuance of a U. S. patent on the application, the public will, in fact, receive something in return for the patent grant. Feldman, 517 F.2d at 1355. Patent Owner has persuaded us that such exception not only applies to a deposit, but also extends to a biological material known and readily available. See 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081. In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art.” slip op. at 15

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

    “In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art. Because all of Petitioner’s challenges rely on Barbour (Pet. 6), all those challenges fail.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, it is undisputed that TC1507 germplasm was known and readily available to the public by Barbour’s publication date in 2006 (Pet. 49–53), years before the 2014 issuance date of the ’378 patent (Ex. 1001, code 45). Thus, based on the record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the 2004 application satisfies the enablement requirement as of its application date in 2004. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing 52 Fed. Reg. 34080, 34081). As a result, the challenged claims are entitled to the 2004 priority date and, thus, Barbour does not qualify as prior art. Because all of Petitioner’s challenges rely on Barbour (Pet. 6), all those challenges fail.” slip op. at 15

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

    “would understand that the term “‘flanked by’ permits overlap between the expression cassette and the DNA sequence it is flanked by.” Pet. 24–26. Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction. PO Resp. 6–7. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any claim term.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,901,378 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,901,378
• Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not proven unpatentable under either §103 ground because the evidence did not show the claimed viewability determination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’329 patent: a person that would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s resurrected argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of § 311(b). Section 311(b) provides: “A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed cancel the claims of the ’329 patent on the basis of Badros, Harkins, and Krassner. Pet. 11. Petitioner did not base its request, in whole or in part, on the Krassner publication. Id. Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner responds that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, “Harkins teaches that its invention can be used in web pages.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶30). Although Petitioner’s citation is off by one paragraph, Petitioner’s response about what Harkins teaches is correct. See Ex. 1004 ¶29 (“The present invention may be implemented for provision of virtually any type of advertising (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet, billboard, etc.) via any type of advertising medium (e.g., newspaper, magazine, radio broadcast, Web pages, billboards, etc.) without departing from the scope of the present invention.”). We find that Harkins is from the same field based on its express statement that it is applicable to “virtually any type of advertising” and “any type of advertising medium,” including “Web pages.” Ex. 1004 ¶29. Further, even if this were insufficient to place Harkins in the same field as the ’329 patent, we find that Harkins is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with which the ’329 patent inventors were involved. In sum, we find that Harkins is analogous art to the ’329 patent.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “Paper 60 (“PO Mot. To Exclude”), 9–10.6 Patent Owner is correct in this regard and, thus, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude with respect to the testimony in the second Smedley Declaration and the Madansky Declaration opining that Badros teaches the determination limitation. Paper 60, 9–12. Petitioner, in its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, argues that Patent Owner’s arguments about the “viewability test” were “surprising.” Paper 62, 8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The “viewability test” is a claim limitation. Petitioner should have anticipated that Patent Owner would argue that limitation. See In re Gardner, 449 F. App’x 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This court has held that when evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight.” (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Univ. of Strathclyde v. 6 Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude seeks to exclude, in part or in whole, Exhibits 1020–1022, 1025–1030, and 1034–1040, which were submitted with Petitioner’s Reply, of which Exhibits 1026 and 1027 are the declaration by Dr. Madansky and the second declaration by Dr. Smedley, respectively. Mot. To Exclude. The Motion to Exclude also seeks to exclude “Exhibits” 1017 and 1018, which are not filed or of record in this case but which are referenced in the Reply. Id. For example, Exhibit 1017 is the Krassner publication, which Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to add to the record as supplemental information. See Paper 21, 3 n.1 (expunging the Krassner publication and stating that it “need not -- and indeed may not -- be re-filed under a new exhibit number”). Apart from the portions of Dr. Smedley’s second declaration and Dr. Madansky’s declaration opining that Badros teaches the “determination” limitation, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot. obviousness determination generally requires a finding that “all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art’.” (citing PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Petitioner argues that “[v]iewability tests were well known for well over a decade prior to the ’329 patent’s priority date.” Reply 9. If that were the case, then Petitioner should have made its argument in the Petition. Section 312(a) of Title 35 is titled “Requirements of Petition,” and it specifies that a petition must identify, among other things, “the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including . . . (B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence and opinions, if the petitioner relies on expert opinions.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon; and . . . the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge.”). Thus, “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 73 (Nov. 21, 2019).7 Dr. Smedley’s testimony in his second declaration, that “Badros discloses Patent Owner’s ‘viewability test’” (Ex. 1027 ¶11), is clearly evidence to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. The same is true of Dr. Madansky’s testimony that she agrees with Dr. Smedley in this regard. Ex. 1026 ¶4.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,443,329
• Bank Of America, N.A. v. Nant Holdings IP, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2023 · IPR2021-01333 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 18, 26, 27, 29, and 31 were not shown unpatentable because Ogasawara did not disclose claim 18’s determining limitation, and the obviousness grounds did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a “Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and one to two years of experience 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Because the ’252 patent was filed before the effective date of the relevant amendment, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102, 103 apply. working with image processing, image recognition, or a related field.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jeffrey Rodriguez. Ex. 1003 ¶ 43. Patent Owner does not propose a description of the level of ordinary skill in the art or dispute Petitioner’s description. PO Resp. 15. We adopt Petitioner’s description, which is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 5

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

    “C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim is construed using the same standard used in federal district court in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Patent Owner proposes construing the term “the image” in all challenged claims to refer to “the same, single image.” PO Resp. 20. Based on this proposed construction, Patent Owner argues that the combination of Ogasawara and Bolle does not teach the limitations of claim 31. Id. at 59–60. As discussed below, for reasons unrelated to the term “the image,” Petitioner does not meet its burden to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See Sections II.D–II.F. Therefore, we determine that the term “the image” does not require an express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner does not show persuasively that Ogasawara expressly or implicitly discloses the determining limitation of claim 18. The portions of Ogasawara cited by Petitioner indicate that Ogasawara’s computing platform invokes its recognition software to analyze image data without first determining if the image contains a recognizable symbol. See Pet. 23–25 (citing Ex. 1005, 18:11–58, 20:41–67, 21:15–20). Ogasawara discloses that the user of its device verifies that an image contains an entire symbol when capturing the image and before transmitting the image data to the computing platform. Ex. 1005, 20:47–51 (“While the consumer is scanning a particular bar code with the digital camera, . . . the consumer can visually verify that the entire image has been captured.”); see also id. at 20:41–47, 22:10–13, 22:59–63 (disclosing that a user captures an image of an item’s bar code by placing it within the image field of the digital camera). As a result, when Ogasawara’s computing platform receives the image data, it simply invokes recognition software to analyze the image data.2 Id. at 18:32–37, 21:17–20. For example, Ogasawara discloses that “[o]nce the bar code image has been captured, the program decodes the bar code image data . . . by operating on the bar code image with pattern recognition software.” Id. at 21:17–20; see also id. at 18:32–37 (“Once this information is received . . . , a character 2 In fact, Petitioner appears to acknowledge that Ogasawara’s device operates in this manner. Pet. 24–25 (“[o]nce the bar code image has been captured, the program decodes the bar code image data . . . with pattern recognition software.”). recognition and/or pattern recognition application routine can be invoked . . . to . . . decode the bar code.”). Thus, Ogasawara supports Patent Owner’s position that Ogasawara’s computing platform does not determine if an image contains a recognizable symbol before analyzing the image. Petitioner argues that the term “recognize” in Ogasawara discloses determining if an image contains a recognizable symbol, whereas the term “decode” discloses analyzing the symbol to extract information. Pet. Reply 6 (“capture, recognize and decode captured images.”). We disagree. Ogasawara uses both terms—recognize and decode—to describe analyzing image data to extract information. Ex. 1005, 18:32–37, 21:17–20. For example, Ogasawara discloses that its computing platform invokes recognition software “to either decode the bar code videographic data or to perform pattern recognition functions on a[n] icon-like patter[n].” Id. at 18:32–37 (emphases added); see also id. at 21:17–20 (“the program decodes the bar code image data . . . by operating on the bar code image with pattern recognition software”) (emphases added). Thus, Petitioner’s reliance on the term “recognize” does not show that Ogasawara discloses the determining limitation of claim 18. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner does not show sufficiently” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not show persuasively that Ogasawara expressly or implicitly discloses the determining limitation of claim 18. The portions of Ogasawara cited by Petitioner indicate that Ogasawara’s computing platform invokes its recognition software to analyze image data without first determining if the image contains a recognizable symbol. See Pet. 23–25 (citing Ex. 1005, 18:11–58, 20:41–67, 21:15–20). Ogasawara discloses that the user of its device verifies that an image contains an entire symbol when capturing the image and before transmitting the image data to the computing platform. Ex. 1005, 20:47–51 (“While the consumer is scanning a particular bar code with the digital camera, . . . the consumer can visually verify that the entire image has been captured.”); see also id. at 20:41–47, 22:10–13, 22:59–63 (disclosing that a user captures an image of an item’s bar code by placing it within the image field of the digital camera). As a result, when Ogasawara’s computing platform receives the image data, it simply invokes recognition software to analyze the image data.2 Id. at 18:32–37, 21:17–20. For example, Ogasawara discloses that “[o]nce the bar code image has been captured, the program decodes the bar code image data . . . by operating on the bar code image with pattern recognition software.” Id. at 21:17–20; see also id. at 18:32–37 (“Once this information is received . . . , a character 2 In fact, Petitioner appears to acknowledge that Ogasawara’s device operates in this manner. Pet. 24–25 (“[o]nce the bar code image has been captured, the program decodes the bar code image data . . . with pattern recognition software.”). recognition and/or pattern recognition application routine can be invoked . . . to . . . decode the bar code.”). Thus, Ogasawara supports Patent Owner’s position that Ogasawara’s computing platform does not determine if an image contains a recognizable symbol before analyzing the image. Petitioner argues that the term “recognize” in Ogasawara discloses determining if an image contains a recognizable symbol, whereas the term “decode” discloses analyzing the symbol to extract information. Pet. Reply 6 (“capture, recognize and decode captured images.”). We disagree. Ogasawara uses both terms—recognize and decode—to describe analyzing image data to extract information. Ex. 1005, 18:32–37, 21:17–20. For example, Ogasawara discloses that its computing platform invokes recognition software “to either decode the bar code videographic data or to perform pattern recognition functions on a[n] icon-like patter[n].” Id. at 18:32–37 (emphases added); see also id. at 21:17–20 (“the program decodes the bar code image data . . . by operating on the bar code image with pattern recognition software”) (emphases added). Thus, Petitioner’s reliance on the term “recognize” does not show that Ogasawara discloses the determining limitation of claim 18. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner does not show sufficiently” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,899,252 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,899,252
• Ebay Inc. v. Masterobjects, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00740 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15–17, 21, 24–26, and 32–37 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish the claimed usability test.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the 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).” slip op. at 9

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

    “interpreted 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); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2141–46 (2016). We interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “1. Overview of Kravets (Ex. 1003) Petitioner asserts Kravets is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion that Kravets is prior art. Kravets issued from a patent application filed January 31, 2000. Ex. 1003, [22]. Based on the earliest possible priority date of the ’024 patent (see supra Section I.C), for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we conclude that Kravets is prior art to the ’024 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 12

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

    “display to the user includes 1) PSS 40 identifying a first set of search terms, which preferably comprises 500 search terms, where the first n characters of each search term matches the n-character input string in the request (Ex. 1003, 6:17–36); and 2) PSS 40 selecting a second set of search terms, such as 6 terms, from the first set of search terms by selecting the 6 terms that have the highest value scores (Ex. 1003, 7:26–40). This disclosure does not describe a client object testing for usability by checking that a return message corresponds to the latest query. First, this disclosure relates to actions performed by the server, rather than the client. Id. at 6:17–36, 7:26–40 (describing PSS 40 performing this technique). But claim 1 requires the client object perform the test for usability. Ex. 1001, 32:2–3 (“the client object tests the usability of the results in the return message”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,539,024 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,539,024
• Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–13 were not shown unpatentable because Beifus did not disclose the claimed torque table with alternate torque settings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Beifus states that Figure 6 “is a chart illustrating an induction motor speed-torque curve that is programmed into a memory of an ECM.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. Because “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference,” the dispositive issue in this proceeding is well defined: does Figure 6 (and related disclosure) of Beifus teach “selecting a torque table associated with the adjustment factor, the torque table including alternate torque settings,” as recited in independent claim 7? See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “reasoning of Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that “[u]pon reading Beifus, a person of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that the ECM control circuit could handle the torque values in two ways – storing a set of torque values in a memory or by calculating the torque values ‘on the fly.’” Reply 18. Kennametal explains that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘do[es] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal at 1381 (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). Petitioner did not raise the Kennametal theory of anticipation in its Petition, and the argument based on it in the Reply is, therefore, improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”) (emphasis added); CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Helferich Pat. Lic., LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 79) (“Should there be improper arguments or evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its discretion, may exclude the reply and related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively, decline to consider the improper arguments and/or related evidence.”). Although Patent Owner addressed this theory in its Response (PO Resp. 21–24), Patent Owner appears to have done so only prophylactically after the theory was raised by Petitioner in redirect examination of Dr. Sidman. See PO Resp. 21 (“During Dr. Sidman’s redirect examination by [Petitioner’s] counsel, he was asked the following leading question . . . .”) (“The Board should disregard any of this new evidence and argument if [Petitioner] intends to rely on it.”). Because this is a new argument, not raised in the Petition, we do not consider it.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the ambiguity when Figure 6 is actually described in detail in the specification.” Id. at 16. As Patent Owner asserts, “Beifus makes it clear that Figure 6 is a plot of values derived from key characteristics which are motor parameters of the emulated motor.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 36; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16, 31). This understanding of Beifus is confirmed by testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16. Dr. Horenstein explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parameters stored in the ECM are key parameters used with the formula reproduced above to describe the torque-speed curve of the induction motor being emulated, namely the no-load speed, breakdown speed, and shape description number n. Id. ¶ 15. Dr. Horenstein further testifies that, “although square and diamond symbols appear along the curves in Figure 6, nowhere does Beifus describe the storing of these individual points.” Id. ¶ 16. Rather, Dr. Horenstein expresses his opinion that “a person of skill would understand these symbols to be included simply to identify which curve applies to Option 1 and which to Option 2 [i.e., different options for the induction motor breakdown speed], as indicated by the legend to the right of the plots.” Id. Petitioner challenged Dr. Horenstein’s opinion at his deposition, in part by comparing a drawing from one of Dr. Horenstein’s own patents that included a series of curves with data marked by different symbols: Q. So if a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Figure 6 of the Beifus patent sees diamonds and squares, wouldn’t they come to an understanding that those are data points? A. I don’t think so. And the reason is that a formula is given that explains how the curves are computed. Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s patent], those are discretely measured points performed by experiment, and there really is no formula that applies to those curves per se, they’re just data points that have some scatter relative to each other and they happen to be connected by lines, but those lines do not represent a formula. Ex. 1013, 54:2–16. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of this testimony as explaining that “the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diamonds and squares appearing in Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s] patent are data points, as opposed to mere curve identifiers, is because the diamonds and squares are connected by lines.” Reply 15. Rather, Dr. Horenstein’s testimony makes clear that his opinion is grounded in Beifus’s disclosure of a formula that allows calculation of the illustrated points and that connection of data points measured by experiment with lines is incidental. Dr. Horenstein’s testimony is more persuasive than the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Michael D. Sidman, Ph.D., on the identification of “key characteristic points” disclosed by Beifus. For example, Dr. Sidman appeared to suggest at his deposition that the entire speed-torque curve of Beifus’s Figure 6 is itself a “key characteristic point,” but qualified that position when challenged by Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001, 23:22–25:15. Nevertheless, Dr. Sidman agrees that (1) a curve can be generated from a mathematical formula and graphed (Ex. 2001, 30:8–11); (2) Beifus’s two formulas correspond to the formulas for “Option 1” and “Option 2” shown in Figure 6 (id. at 33:12–36:19); (3) operating speed, breakdown speed, no load speed, and shape-description number n are variables used in the formula disclosed by Beifus (id. at 22:23–23:10); (4) the calculation disclosed by Beifus could be performed on the fly in a motor controller (id. at 47:6–14); and (5) Beifus does not explicitly disclose that any precalculations are performed (id. at 43:1–23). These aspects of Dr. Sidman’s testimony are consistent with Patent Owner’s reading of Beifus.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We see no compelling reason to modify these constructions based on the positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt them for this Decision. With respect to the construction of “torque table,” Patent Owner asserts: If the Board’s construction means that the table need not be in any particular format in the memory, but the table must still store the alternative torque values required by the claim “in a memory connected to the motor,” then Patent Owner accepts this interpretation for the purposes of this proceeding. However, if the Board’s construction including reference to “a torque curve graphically representing a set of torque values” does not require the torque values shown on the curve to be stored in memory, it is erroneous. PO Resp. 9. We agree with Patent Owner’s position, namely that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘table’ still must require the torque values to be stored in the table.” Id. As Patent Owner points out, “[t]he only intrinsic evidence available in this proceeding demonstrates a ‘torque table’ stores alternative torque settings.” Id. In particular, the ’092 patent consistently uses “table” to refer to discrete data that are stored in a memory, such as in the “speed tables” described as alternatives to “torque tables.” See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 5–24, col. 16, ll. 63–66 (“Instead of adjusting the torque as described above, the motor controller 18 could store a plurality of different torque or speed tables and select one of the torque/speed tables based on an input provided by the torque adjustment mechanism.”). This aspect of the construction of “torque table” is reflected in its reference to including a graphical representation of “a set” of torque values in a memory connected to a motor.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,990,092 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,990,092
• EMC Corporation v. Acqis LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01469 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24 and 31–33 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove obviousness over either asserted reference combination, including failure to establish Bogaerts as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “a data signal communication with an interconnected peripheral component.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner agrees with the construction in the Decision on Institution that the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” means “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction.” PO Resp. 21–22. We see no reason now to deviate from the construction in the Decision on Institution. The evidence indicates that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” refers to a particular industry standard, not just any communication with an interconnected peripheral component. Industry literature and dictionaries use the proper noun “Peripheral Component Interconnect” and the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry specification for a local bus. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2002, 6–7; Ex. 2003, 7–8. The challenged claims recite “Peripheral Component Interconnect” as a proper noun and abbreviate it as “PCI,” indicating that the challenged claims use those terms consistent with the understood industry meaning. Ex. 1001, col. 27, ll. 24–25, col. 28, ll. 35–36; see Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The written description similarly uses the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry standard, and uses the common noun “peripheral bus” to refer to a generic peripheral bus. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 31–33 (“the present invention may interface two PCI or PCI-like buses”), with id. at col. 7, ll. 4–6 (“Additionally, the host controller is coupled to a clock control logic, a configuration signal, and a peripheral bus.”) (emphasis added). Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Bruce Young, acknowledge that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. Ex. 1003 ¶ 58; Ex. 2006, 1, 3; Ex. 2031, 16:8–12. The evidence Petitioner identifies in support of its proposed construction is the claim construction order issued in ACQIS LLC v. Appro International, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2011). Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1013). In that case, though, the parties did not appear to dispute that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. See Ex. 1013, 7 (“The parties’ primary dispute is whether the term is limited to the conventional, parallel PCI Local Bus, and, therefore excludes PCI Express bus architecture and bus transaction protocol.”). Moreover, the district court subsequently reconsidered its construction and clarified that the term “PCI bus transaction” refers to a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Ex. 1030, 8–10. Therefore, we construe the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction,” and we construe the claim term “PCI bus transaction” to mean “PCI industry standard bus transaction.”” slip op. at 6

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

    “Horst outputs address and data bits of a PCI bus transaction in serial form over the TNet links. Pet. 31–34. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. The TNet processor interface in Horst translates a CPU transaction into a TNet transaction. Ex. 1009, 5 (“The interface to the destination CPU or I/O device provides mapping and validation hardware translating this virtual TNet address to the appropriate physical memory address.”), Figs. 5, 7; Ex. 2021 ¶ 94 (“The TNet Processor Interface generates TNet transactions from CPU front-side bus transactions.”). The TNet processor interface then encodes the TNet transaction using an 8B/9B encoder so that it can be output over the 9-bit serial TNet links. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48, 146; Ex. 1009, 3, Figs. 3, 4 (showing “8B/9B encoder”), Table 1; Ex. 2021 ¶ 105. Petitioner does not identify persuasive evidence indicating that either the CPU transaction or the TNet transaction is a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1009, 3–8, Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7–9, Table 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159[24C(i)], 159[24C(iv)], 159[24C(v)], 159[31B(i)], 159[31B(iii)]); Ex. 2021 ¶ 129. Thus, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Petitioner points out that, after a TNet transaction is communicated over the TNet links, a TNet bus interface in the console may use information in the TNet transaction to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction if a particular I/O device is connected to a PCI bus. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1009, 7, Fig. 8). But claims 24 and 31 require more than just communicating information over serial channels that subsequently might be used in the console to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Claims 24 and 31, when read in light of the specification, require that the information actually communicated over the serial channels includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Ex. 1001, col. 20, ll. 60–65, col. 21, ll. 15–21, col. 27, ll. 34–38, col. 28, ll. 34–39; Ex. 2022, 15:12–16:2, 22:11–16. As discussed above, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “The evidence identified by Patent Owner indicates that the date “2 October 1996” on Bogaerts is when it was submitted to the CERN/LHCC committee. Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 170, 171, 173; Ex. 2026, 12. Although it is possible that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library at or around the same time, Petitioner has not shown that by a preponderance of the evidence. For example, Petitioner does not cite persuasive evidence indicating that the “Submitted by 2 Oct 1996” entry in the CERN Document Server record means that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library on that date. Tr. 23:1–12, 25:5–25; Pet. Reply 21–25. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the CERN Document Server record itself was not created until December 18, 2014. Tr. 25:5–25; Ex. 2011, 439. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Bogaerts is a prior art printed publication based on its availability in the CERN Library.” slip op. at 17

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “should be excluded for lack of authentication under Fed. R. Evid. 901. PO Mot. 2–6. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires that the proponent produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent claims it is. Here, Patent Owner does not dispute that Exhibit 1011 is what Petitioner claims it is, namely a reference entitled “RD24 Status Report: Application of the Scalable Coherent Interface to Data Acquisition at LHC.” Id. What Patent Owner disputes is whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Bogaerts is prior art with respect to the ’814 patent. Id. Patent Owner attempts to characterize this dispute as a question of authentication, arguing that Petitioner has not produced “evidence that [Exhibit 1011] is a true and correct copy of a publication that was publicly available as of the date asserted by Petitioner.” Id. at 3. But this is a question of sufficiency of proof, not admissibility. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1011 is denied.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS RE42,814 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2016 · IPR2014-01134 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, and 19 were not shown unpatentable because Baker did not anticipate them and Reed with Baker or Love did not establish obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Whether a party is a real party in interest is a “highly fact-dependent question” that is evaluated “on a case-by-case basis.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Some of the common considerations for determining whether a party is a real party in interest include whether the party funds, directs, or controls the petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Here, Patent Owner does not identify any evidence indicating that HTC America funds, directs, controls, or otherwise is involved in this petition or proceeding. Patent Owner’s argument that HTC America and HTC Corporation acted jointly in other cases and that HTC America is named as a real party in interest in other cases does not indicate that HTC America is a real party in interest in this case. Similarly, Patent Owner’s argument that an employee of HTC America is identified on the power of attorney for HTC Corporation in IPR2014-01135 does not indicate that HTC America is a real party in interest in this case.3 Finally, Patent Owner’s argument that HTC America and HTC Corporation share counsel does not indicate that HTC America funds, directs, controls, or otherwise is involved in this case.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is supported by the claim language and the specification. In the challenged claims, the disputed phrase “at a start of a message transmission using a first one of the codes” immediately follows the phrase “a total transmit power of the subscriber station for the codes.” Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 62–64, col. 10, ll. 38–40, col. 12, ll. 8–10. Further, the specification explains that a “transmit power difference” is a difference between “a first and a second transmit power.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 41–43. According to the specification, the first transmit power is “the total maximum transmit power of the subscriber station for the plurality of codes” (id. at col. 2, ll. 45–47), and “[t]he second of the two transmit powers is the total transmit power of the subscriber station for the plurality of codes at the start of a message transmission using a first of the codes” (id. at col. 2, ll. 59–61 (emphasis added)). Thus, the specification indicates that the phrase “at a start of a message transmission using a first one of the codes” modifies the total transmit power. Other portions of the specification also support Patent Owner’s interpretation. See, e.g., id. at col. 6, ll. 42–47 (“The transmit power difference . . . is required to exist between the total transmit power for the two codes DCH and EDCH at the start of the transmission of an EDCH message and the maximum transmit power for the two codes DCH and EDCH.” (emphasis added)), col. 8, ll. 51–63. Therefore, we determine that, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “at a start of a message transmission using a first one of the codes” in the challenged claims modifies the phrase “a total transmit power of the subscriber station for the codes.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner does not identify any express disclosure in Baker indicating that the boundary of the frame or timeslot immediately preceding the ACK or NACK signal is the start of a message transmission. Pet. 23–26; Pet. Reply 9–10; Tr. 11:3–10. Petitioner instead argues that “an EDCH message as described in the ’174 patent can be a single frame,” and, thus, “maintaining a transmit power difference at a start of a frame (i.e., at a start of an EDCH message transmission) must be equivalent to maintaining a transmit power difference at a start of a message.” Pet. Reply 9; Tr. 13:15– 19. In other words, Petitioner argues that the start of a frame of an EDCH message inherently is the start of a message transmission.4 Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. First, Petitioner only argues that the mobile station in the ’174 patent transmits an EDCH message. Pet. Reply 9. Petitioner does not argue or identify evidence indicating that the mobile station in Baker transmits an EDCH message. Id. at 9–10; Tr. 12:6– 4 Petitioner argued at the oral hearing that the term “message transmission” in the challenged claims refers to any frame in a message because the EDCH message described in the ’174 patent can be a single frame. Tr. 61:2–62:10. Petitioner’s argument is improper because it was presented for the first time at the oral hearing. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Further, we are not persuaded that, because an EDCH message sometimes can be a single frame, the phrase “at a start of a message transmission” refers to the start of any frame in a message transmission. 16. Therefore, Petitioner’s argument that the start of a frame of an EDCH message inherently is the start of a message transmission does not demonstrate that the start of a frame in Baker inherently is the start of a message transmission. Tr. 12:6–16. Second, Petitioner does not identify evidence indicating that the start of a frame of an EDCH message necessarily is the start of a message transmission. Pet. Reply 9–10. Petitioner argues that an EDCH message can be a single frame, and, thus, the start of a frame of an EDCH message can be the start of a message transmission. Id. at 9; Ex. 1015 ¶ 11. However, the mere possibility that the start of a frame may correspond to the start of a message transmission is not sufficient to show that Baker anticipates the challenged claims. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). Further, Petitioner acknowledges that a message transmission in Baker may include more than one frame, and, as a result, the start of a frame in Baker does not necessarily correspond to the start of a message transmission. Tr. 12:6–16, 16:19–19:13. Therefore, because Petitioner has not shown that Baker expressly or inherently discloses determining a transmit power difference between a maximum transmit power for the codes and a total transmit power for the codes at a start of a message transmission using a first one of the codes, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Baker anticipates claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, and 19.” slip op. at 12

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

    “As discussed above, Petitioner argues that Reed teaches a mobile station that can transmit two or more data streams. Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 14–21). The portion of Reed cited by Petitioner states that: If the mobile station desires to send two or more data streams (or hold voice and data connections at the same time), an addition [sic] degree of freedom allows the mobile station to deliberately increase the headroom on one of the data streams to de-prioritize that data stream. This would result in, for example, a longer time to transmit a text message from the mobile station but allow a digital picture to be transmitted at an optimum data rate. Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 14–21 (emphases added). This portion of Reed indicates that the headroom for one data stream can be adjusted independently of the headroom for the other data streams, and, thus, demonstrates that each data stream has its own headroom. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 110; Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 100–101. As a result, assuming that each data stream in Reed is assigned a different code, Reed teaches determining a separate headroom for each code, not determining a single headroom for a plurality of codes. Ex. 1003 ¶ 110; Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 101–104.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,941,174 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,941,174
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2016 · IPR2014-01347 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–3, 6–12, 16, 18–31, 33–39, 76–80, and 82–85 not unpatentable because it excluded Goldbeck for lack of authentication, defeating both obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “Rule 901(a) states: “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Thus, we first look to what TRW claimed Exhibit 1005 to be.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached

    “Magna challenged the sufficiency of TRW’s evidence that Exhibit 1005 constitutes a prior art printed publication. See PO Resp. 48–50; see also 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (“A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.”). TRW responded to Magna’s sufficiency of the evidence arguments by” slip op. at 4

  Patent outcomesUS 8,508,593 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,508,593
• HTC Corporation / HTC America et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2014-01133 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 24, 25, and 31 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references did not establish the distinct diverting and controlling components required by the claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner instead waited until after we granted the Motion to Terminate and dismissed NEC America and NEC Mobile from this case to argue that NEC Corporation had controlled their participation. Ex. 2002, 19:18–25:18. The result of Patent Owner’s delay is that the parties whose conduct is in question no longer are involved in this case. Patent Owner previously assured the remaining parties and the Board that “NEC’s termination from the IPRs [would] have little, if any, impact on the remaining parties or the Board.” Paper 13, 5. Yet, now, Patent Owner seeks the extraordinary remedy of terminating this case in its entirety based on statements made in the documents that secured the dismissal of NEC America and NEC Mobile (documents which the remaining parties did not sign). Given Patent Owner’s delay and previous assurances regarding the dismissal of NEC America and NEC Mobile, we decline to terminate this case with respect to the remaining parties. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12. 2. HTC America Patent Owner argues that HTC America should have been identified as a real party in interest in the Petition because of the relationship between HTC America and HTC Corporation. PO Resp. 13–19. Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because the Petition already identifies HTC America as a real party in interest. Pet. 1.” slip op. at 6

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther

    “E. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2006–2019 (Paper 41), to which Patent Owner filed an Opposition (Paper 43), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 45). Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2006–2019 is dismissed as moot because this Decision does not rely on Exhibits 2006– 2019.” slip op. at 13

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

    “B. Claim Construction The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The claims of the ’923 patent indicate that the diverting and controlling steps in claim 1 are performed by separate components, and that the diverting unit and controlling entity in claim 24 are separate components. Claim 24, for example, recites the diverting unit and the controlling entity separately, and, thus, indicates that those elements are distinct components. Ex. 1001, col. 10, l. 62–col. 11, l. 3; see Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.”). Claim 24 also specifies that the diverting unit is configured to divert a message “to” the controlling entity, which further indicates that the diverting unit is separate from the controlling entity. Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 62–65; see Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Not only are the ‘two other computers’ recited independently from, and in addition to, the gateway and caching computer, the word ‘other’ denotes a further level of distinction.”).3 Similarly, claim 1 recites diverting a message “to” a controlling entity and then controlling the application program “in” the controlling entity, which indicates that the diverting step is performed by something other than the controlling entity.4 Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 15–22; see NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 419 F.3d 1282, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that the “originating processor” and “gateway switch” are separate components because, inter alia, the claim language shows that information “is transmitted from an ‘originating processor’ to a gateway switch), abrogated on other grounds by IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp., 769 F.3d 1359, 1361 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 7,218,923 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,218,923
• HTC Corporation / ZTE (USA) et al. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2014-01135 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–9 were not shown unpatentable because neither Sasuta nor Lawrence disclosed the home network preference limitation explicitly or inherently.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Whether a party is a real party in interest is a “highly fact-dependent question” that is evaluated “on a case-by-case basis.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Some of the common considerations for determining whether a party is a real party in interest include whether the party funds, directs, or controls the petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Here, Patent Owner does not identify any evidence indicating that HTC America funds, directs, controls, or otherwise is involved in this petition or proceeding. Patent Owner’s argument that HTC America and HTC Corporation acted jointly in other cases and that HTC America is named as a real party in interest in other cases does not indicate that HTC America is a real party in interest in this case. Similarly, Patent Owner’s argument that HTC America and HTC Corporation share counsel does not indicate that HTC America funds, directs, controls, or otherwise is involved in this case. The only evidence specifically related to this proceeding is that an employee of HTC America is identified on the power of attorney for HTC Corporation. PO Resp. 12–18; see also, Ex. 2022, 24:20–25:6 (Transcript of conference call with the Board: counsel for Patent Owner “So if we want to talk about evidence specific to these cases, it’s this power of attorney in the 1135 case.”). We are not persuaded that this evidence, by itself, is sufficient to indicate that HTC America is a real party in interest in this case. There is no dispute that the actual signature on the power of attorney is from an employee of HTC Corporation. See PO Resp. 14; Paper 33 (“Reply”) 23. And Petitioner represents that the reference to an HTC America employee on the document was a simple oversight. Reply 23. Patent Owner does not provide evidence to the contrary.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “preamble “is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Catalina Marketing Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Id. A preamble, however, “limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” For example, “dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.” Id. Both parties agree that, although it is part of the preamble, the term “home network” acts as a limitation of claim 1. PO Resp. 25; Paper 42 (“Tr.”), 5–6 (Petitioner’s counsel: “We think that home network is limiting.”), 12–13 (Petitioner’s counsel: “Since the preamble, we agreed, is limiting . . .”). We agree that the preamble limits the scope of the challenged claims. The body of claim 1 refers to “said first network,” which refers to the “first . . . mobile telephone network[]” recited in the preamble. The preamble further defines “said first network is the home network of the mobile communication device.” We are persuaded that this language “indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention” and is not merely a statement of intended purpose or intended use. Catalina Marketing, 289 F.3d at 808 (citing Bell Comm’s Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Comm’s Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes a broadest reasonable interpretation of “home network”—“the network that the mobile communication device is preconfigured to access first.” PO Resp. 25. According to Patent Owner, several examples described in the ’804 patent, including those illustrated by Figures 3, 4a, and 4b, support this interpretation by showing a mobile station that is “preconfigured to access [the] home network first.” Id. at 25–27 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 3, 4a, 4b, 3:22–29, 3:61–65). Petitioner proposes a competing interpretation for the term—“the network to which the mobile stations subscribe.” Reply 3. Petitioner argues that there is “a clear and unambiguous definition” of the term in the specification. Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:41–42 (“the ‘home’ network (i.e. the network to which the mobile stations subscribe”)). We agree with Petitioner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “home network” is “the network to which a mobile station subscribes,” as explicitly defined in the specification. Ex. 1001, 1:40–47. Nothing in the ’804 patent indicates that the patentee intended to modify this definition. In particular, the word “preconfigure” in Patent Owner’s proposed construction is never recited in the ’804 patent. We, therefore, are not persuaded that limiting the term “home network” in such a way is proper.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Nothing in Sasuta’s description requires that in choosing a service provider from the catalog of service providers, a provider must be chosen in any particular order. In fact, Sasuta is silent on whether any particular network, such as a home network, has priority and should be chosen first. The Petition relies, primarily, on Figures 3 and 4, and the corresponding descriptions, for support of anticipation by Sasuta. Pet. 31–32, 49 (citing Ex. 1010, 3:44–4:8, 6:1–10). These portions of Sasuta, however, do not describe a home network or any other type of network that is selected first among those networks listed in the catalog. To the contrary, the language corresponding with Figure 3 describes communication unit 1001 choosing service provider 103 for its telephone interconnect service, without any explanation, despite the fact that service provider 101 also includes that service. The language corresponding with Figure 4, similarly, does not shed any light on whether there is a home network that is always chosen first from the catalog of service providers. The only language relating to how a network is chosen in this portion of Sasuta states that “the communication unit uses this service characteristic information by comparing them against corresponding threshold values for these characteristics . . . [i]n this manner, the communication unit can determine whether a particular service provider should be considered for providing a particular service.” Ex. 1010, 5:5–14. Thus, Sasuta does not disclose explicitly the home network preference limitation. Petitioner also has not met its burden to show that the home network preference limitation is disclosed inherently by Sasuta. “To serve as anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Petitioner acknowledges that its inherency argument was not made until, at the earliest, the Reply brief, and that it did not proffer evidence on the issue. Tr. 14:16–18 (“JUDGE WEINSCHENK: What evidence have you provided us that shows us that [the home network preference limitation is] so well-known that we don’t need it in the reference? MR. THILL: In terms of the record, I don’t know that we made an explicit argument, and that was not part of the testimony of our expert.”); see also Reply 3–4 (asserting that “[a]bsent a [home network] cellular telephone is inoperable” and that it “is inherent in the definition of a working cellular telephone” to have a home network, but providing no citations to supporting evidence for these assertions).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,377,804 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,377,804

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.