• Square, Inc. v. Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · CBM2020-00015 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101 and the asserted Moran-based anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “been “charged with infringement,” Pet. 10, but that statement does not foreclose reading that allegation as a charge of infringement against Petitioner. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), “[c]harged with infringement means a real and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a covered business method patent exists such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.” “[W]here a patent holder accuses customers of direct infringement based on the sale or use of a supplier’s equipment, the supplier has standing to commence a declaratory judgment action if,” for instance, “there is a controversy between the patentee and the supplier as to the supplier’s liability for induced or contributory infringement based on acts of direct infringement by its customers.” Arris Group, Inc. v. British Telecomm. PLC, 639 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also ABB Inc. v. Cooper Indus., LLC, 635 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over claim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement where the plaintiff “had an interest in determining whether it would be liable for indemnification, which turned on whether [its contractor] would be liable for infringement”). Further, an allegation of direct infringement of a U.S. patent against the manufacturer’s customers may amount to an implicit allegation of indirect infringement against the manufacturer. Arris Group, 638 F.3d at 1375–76. Petitioner has shown persuasively that it sought to intervene in the district court litigation against its customers to “seek a declaratory judgement that [the] Square Register and Square’s other products and services do not infringe any valid claim of the ’551 [p]atent.” Ex. 1034, 3; Reply 1011. Patent Owner, the plaintiff in that suit, consented to the motion. Ex. 1034, 7; Reply 11. The district court granted Petitioner’s motion to intervene and Petitioner filed its Complaint in Intervention in district court, deeming Petitioner the “true defendant” in the dispute. See Reply 6; Ex. 1018. There is no question that the underlying district court litigation in which Petitioner seeks to assert non-infringement of the ’551 patent stems from Patent Owner’s allegations that Petitioner’s products directly or indirectly infringe the ’551 patent. These facts prove that Petitioner’s involvement in the district court litigation as an intervenor, together with Patent Owner’s accusation of infringement in its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, show a real and substantial controversy between Patent Owner and Petitioner. And the record shows that a federal court indeed has exercised jurisdiction over Patent Owner’s claim of infringement against Petitioner as intervenor, with Petitioner actually defending such a claim. This is sufficient to conclude that at the time of the filing of the Petition, Petitioner had been charged with infringement, and, therefore, had standing to file the Petition in this proceeding.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The parties do not identify claim constructions necessary for the Board to resolve the issues in this proceeding. Pet. 12; see generally Prelim. Resp.; PO Resp. We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms in controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner proffers that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Data Science or Electrical Engineering or any undergraduate degree plus three to five years of professional experience in software development, computer programming, or network engineering or equivalent additional formal education such as graduate studies, or work experience to replace formal education. Pet. 13 (citing Hochman Decl. ¶¶ 16–22). There is no dispute as to whether Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art is appropriate in this case. We do not find it necessary to define the level of skill with specificity save to note that the level of ordinary skill is evidenced by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown).” slip op. at 23

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “components “implemented in a generic computer environment” for performing that abstract idea. Pet. 68. Petitioner further annotates claim 1 to provide identifiers for each limitation. Id. For this part of the analysis, we address specifically limitation [vi], which recites “automatically transmitting a digital receipt for the transaction to the destination associated with the first customer without input from the first customer.” Limitation [vi] recites transmission of a credit card receipt according to instructions previously provided by the credit card user, which constitutes a fundamental economic practice, one of the certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Guidance as a judicial exception. See Pet. 74 (arguing that issuing receipts for a purchase transaction is “nothing more than the organization of a fundamental and economic activity”). The claim’s recitation of an “automatic[]” transmission does not alter the fundamental business transaction recited in the claim: providing a customer a receipt for a credit card charge. The limitation provides no technological detail of how to automate the transmission of such a receipt or how to effectuate the delivery to a “destination.” See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“At best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic-computer functions.”). The recitation of a “digital” receipt does not alter our analysis either. The modifier adds only that the receipt is in electronic form. The claim language, however, is silent as to how such a receipt is generated or otherwise prepared for transmission to the credit card user. There is no technological detail that would place the “digital” receipt outside of an abstract idea of a fundamental economic practice of providing a credit card receipt to a customer. The other recited limitations also support our determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of a fundamental economic practice. For instance, in its simplest form the claimed process includes three basic steps: registering a customer e-mail address for receiving credit card digital receipts (steps [i]—[ii]), initiating a credit card transaction for a sales transaction of the customer (steps [iii]—[v]), and transmitting the digital receipt in accordance with the information received and stored in steps [i] and [ii]. Thus, the claim explains the basic concept of providing a credit card receipt to a customer. These recited steps place no meaningful limit on the claim scope, as the claim lacks specificity as to how any computer or database is specially programmed to perform the claimed steps. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Simply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.”). Each of claims 11 and 16 also recites the automatic transmission of a digital receipt for a credit card transaction to a user. Petitioner provides an explanation accounting for those claims, see id. at 93–94, and our analysis of claim 1 concerning the determination of an abstract idea equally applies to those claims. We determine that Petitioner has shown that claims 1, 11, and 16 recite a fundamental economic practice, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Guidance as a judicially excepted abstract idea.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,534,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,534,551
• Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · CBM2016-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–3 and 5 are also anticipated by Riach, and specified claims are obvious over combinations of Riach, Graf, Gustin, and Anderson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “For these reasons, we determine that claim 20—its focus and its” slip op. at 37

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 20 is directed to an” slip op. at 52

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “encompasses Riach’s process that copies a portion (but not all) of the original check image data to produce the required modified check image data. Accordingly, we agree that the portion of Riach on which Petitioner relies discloses step (b) of claim 1 that requires, among other limitations, the modified check image data not include at least some visual feature data included in the check image data. Pet. 30 (relying on Ex. 1008, 5:16–30, Figs. 4, 7).” slip op. at 73

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 89

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,163 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,163
• Walgreen Co. / Ahold USA, Inc. et al. v. Advanced Marketing Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2017 · CBM2016-00012 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · CBM · Final written decision

  Claim 9 is unpatentable as anticipated by Nichtberger and, independently, by Ovadia under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “must establish facts supporting its challenges by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). In proceedings under the AIA, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., 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”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326– 27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in AIA proceedings). “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.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). With this standard in mind, we address each challenge below.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner persuasively argues that we should apply the general rule that a preamble which merely recites an intended purpose for an apparatus does not limit the apparatus. Reply 2–3. The preamble of claim 9 recites, in pertinent part, a “distributed discount vehicle for use with a data processing system for tracking and processing a plurality of in-store discounts to potential purchasers of plural products during the checkout process.” Ex. 1001, 11:46–49. By its plain terms, the phrase “during the checkout process” modifies “for tracking and processing,” which in turn modifies the “data processing system.” As explained in Part II.B.1 above, claim 9 is directed to a “discount vehicle” and not to the “data processing system” that is recited in the preamble of claim 9. By its plain terms, therefore, at best, “during the addressing only “during the checkout process” from among phrases recited in the preamble). checkout process” describes an intended use of the unclaimed “data processing system,” namely, by stating when that system is intended to perform “tracking and processing . . . of in-store discounts.” For the same reasons, even if we were to accept Patent Owner’s argument that “during the checkout process” is limiting, the limitation would relate to when the unclaimed “data processing system” tracks and processes discounts, and not to when the “select code” was “selectively deactivated” for particular discounts. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the Specification describes a “computer” that deactivates discounts after the items are scanned and purchased, as follows: As promoted items listed on the MDV are scanned during checkout, the system flags these items as purchased and applies a discount to the price provided to the customer. The computer may thereafter deactivate the promotion for that product to insure that the MDV is not used again to duplicate the discount for the purchased item. The MDV, however, remains active to the extent promoted items were not purchased by the customer during this or previous shopping visits, and the time period set for the promotion has not expired (typically 45 to 90 days). PO Resp. 7 (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:20–29) (emphasis added). This portion of the Specification describes two events occurring “[a]s promoted items listed on the MDV are scanned during checkout,” namely, flagging items as purchased and applying a discount to the price. This passage also indicates that the data processing system with which the discount vehicle is used (i.e., the computer) may “thereafter deactivate” discounts. Thus, the Specification makes it clear that selective deactivation need not occur during checkout, as argued by Patent Owner, but may occur “thereafter.” Patent Owner also cites three other portions of the Specification as describing “what occurs during checkout,” but those portions fail to demonstrate that deactivation must occur “during the checkout process.” See id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:43–47, 4:56–58, 5:1–9). The first and third cited portions describe the checkout process as using a Point-Of-Sale (“POS”) processor that may include a barcode reader and as involving “data processing performed locally within the retail outlet and/or remotely via network connections.” Ex. 1001, 4:43–47, 5:1–9. The second cited portion explains that the discount vehicle may include “coded data located in separate locations [other than a “single code”] for reading during the checkout process.” Id. at 4:56–58. We are not persuaded that these cited portions of the Specification” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “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.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). With this standard in mind, we address each challenge below. slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,219,445 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,219,445
• Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2017 · CBM2015-00182 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the final written decisions, leaving the finding that TSE qualifies as a printed publication undisturbed.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “that Patent Owner fails to even once cite to “the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Patent Owner’s Request simply sets forth its disagreement with our Final Decisions. We are aware of the Federal Circuit decisions addressing public accessibility, and we discussed those decisions in our Final Decisions. Final Dec. 34, 40. Disagreement with our determination alone is not sufficient basis for us to modify our Final Decisions.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Moreover, our Final Decisions also determined that even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art is narrowly limited to a “GUI designer” as Patent Owner asserts, we find that securities companies for banks (“participants”) provided their own front-end order entry software, and that such participants would have employed GUI designers to formulate the front-end order entry software to facilitate trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 2169 ¶ 32). Accordingly, “[w]e determine[d] . . . that the record evidence supports a determination that TSE was publically accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter.” Id. (emphasis added). Petitioner fails to identify, or even allege, error in our finding that “securities companies for banks (‘participants’) provided their own front-end order entry software, and that such participants would have employed GUI designers to formulate the front-end order entry software to facilitate trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.” Id. Whether TSE was required to be accessible to GUI designers, therefore, does not change our ultimate determination that TSE qualifies as a printed publication.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialOther

    “issues noted above. Reh’g Req. 7–9. Discretion to expand a panel rests with the Chief Judge, who, on behalf of the Director, may act to expand a panel on a suggestion from a judge or panel. AOL Inc. v. Coho Licensing LLC, IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015) (Paper 12) (informative). Patent Owner’s suggestion was considered by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who declined to expand the panel.” slip op. at 4

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,772,132
• Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2017 · CBM2015-00181 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the final written decision, maintaining its determination that claims 1–28 are unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “With respect to its discussion of Federal Circuit decisions, we note that Patent Owner fails to even once cite to “the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Patent Owner’s Request simply sets forth its disagreement with our Final Decisions. We are aware of the Federal Circuit decisions addressing public accessibility, and we discussed those decisions in our Final Decisions. Final Dec. 34, 40. Disagreement with our determination alone is not sufficient basis for us to modify our Final Decisions. As for Patent Owner’s discussion of other decisions by other Board panels, we note that none of those decisions are precedential and, therefore, are not binding upon us. Moreover, our Final Decisions also determined that even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art is narrowly limited to a “GUI designer” as Patent Owner asserts, we find that securities companies for banks (“participants”) provided their own front-end order entry software, and that such participants would have employed GUI designers to formulate the front-end order entry software to facilitate trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 2169 ¶ 32). Accordingly, “[w]e determine[d] . . . that the record evidence supports a determination that TSE was publically accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter.” Id. (emphasis added). Petitioner fails to identify, or even allege, error in our finding that “securities companies for banks (‘participants’) provided their own front-end order entry software, and that such participants would have employed GUI designers to formulate the front-end order entry software to facilitate trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.” Id. Whether TSE was required to be accessible to GUI designers, therefore, does not change our ultimate determination that TSE qualifies as a printed publication. For all of these reasons, Patent Owner’s Request does not apprise us of sufficient reason to modify our Final Decisions.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Moreover, our Final Decisions also determined that even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art is narrowly limited to a “GUI designer” as Patent Owner asserts, we find that securities companies for banks (“participants”) provided their own front-end order entry software, and that such participants would have employed GUI designers to formulate the front-end order entry software to facilitate trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 2169 ¶ 32). Accordingly, “[w]e determine[d] . . . that the record evidence supports a determination that TSE was publically accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter.” Id. (emphasis added). Petitioner fails to identify, or even allege, error in our finding that “securities companies for banks (‘participants’) provided their own front-end order entry software, and that such participants would have employed GUI designers to formulate the front-end order entry software to facilitate trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.” Id. Whether TSE was required to be accessible to GUI designers, therefore, does not change our ultimate determination that TSE qualifies as a printed publication.” slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,676,411
• Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2017 · CBM2015-00181 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 are patent-ineligible under § 101 and unpatentable under § 103 over TSE, Belden, and Togher.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “3. Abstract Idea “The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). According to Petitioner, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of” slip op. at 23

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptIneligibleUnpatentable

    “4. Inventive Concept To be patent eligible, a claim directed to an abstract idea must recite additional elements that constitute an inventive concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. One looks to “[t]he elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297–98). The additional elements must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional, activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298. Petitioner contends that claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept.” slip op. at 30

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

    “1. TSE Printed Publication Status Petitioner argues that TSE is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Pet. 11. In support of its showing that TSE qualifies as prior art, Petitioner relies on the November 21, 2005, deposition testimony of Atsushi Kawashima taken during litigation between Patent Owner and a third party, eSpeed, Inc. Id.; Ex. 1010. Whether a document qualifies as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact. In re Enhanced Sec. Research, LLC, 739 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The Federal Circuit “has interpreted § 102 broadly, explaining that even relatively obscure documents qualify as prior art so long as the public has a means of accessing them.” Id. (citing Hall, 781 F.2d at 899).” slip op. at 34

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “2. TSE, Belden, and Togher a. Claims 1 and 26 With respect to claims 1 and 26, Petitioner cites TSE as teaching the majority of limitations of the claims. Pet. 64–69. Petitioner cites Belden for the “single action” limitation in the claims, including the “setting” and “sending” via the “single action,” and cites Togher as teaching an order being for a “default quantity.” Id. at 69–73. Petitioner proposes modifying TSE based on the teachings of Belden and Togher. Id. at 62–64. TSE describes a trading system that facilitates trading with an electronic exchange by receiving bid and offer information, displaying it to a user, and accepting and sending bid and offer orders. Ex. 1007, 6–13, 35. A trading terminal displays a GUI for depicting market information on a Board Screen, which is shown in the figure reproduced below (“TSE’s Board Screen”).” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 7,676,411 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 7,676,411
• Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2017 · CBM2015-00179 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103 over TSE, Togher, Schott, and Cooper, and over Silverman, Togher, Cooper, and Hogan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “The individual elements of the claims do not transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the claims simply recite the use of a generic computer with routine and conventional functions. Further, considering all of the elements as an ordered combination, we determine that the combined elements also do not transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. For all of the above reasons, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that claims 1–15 of the ’056 patent are not directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that the term “price axis” requires reading into the claim the additional “clarification” that a list of prices that do not contain gaps in between prices is not a price axis. There is nothing in the claim language itself that describes gaps or how data is arranged along the price axis or what contains a price axis. The passages and figures of the ’056 patent that Patent Owner (and Mr. Thomas) directs attention to are examples or embodiments of what is claimed, and do not indicate that Patent Owner disclaimed or limited price axis to consist of a list of prices that contains gaps in between prices. Moreover, Mr. Thomas’ illustration of what constitutes a price axis is conclusory and not supported by record evidence. Ex. 2169 ¶¶ 41–42. He has not directed attention to any evidence in support of his testimony as to what does and does not constitute a price axis as illustrated in 14 paragraph 41 of his declaration. As pointed out by Petitioner, an axis may be represented by scale breaks or logarithmic scales, and thus, need not retain an order of gaps as Patent Owner and Mr. Thomas contend. Pet. Reply 11–12; Ex. 1058, 103–109. We also have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence that remarks made by the then applicant during prosecution of the application that matured into the ’056 patent amount to an express and clear disclaimer of the meaning for price axis. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002, 178–179; Ex. 2169 ¶ 39). We are not persuaded by such arguments because the comments made during prosecution have not been shown to amount to a disclaimer of having a price axis without gaps in between prices. For example, Patent Owner directs attention to page 178 of Exhibit 1002 from the prosecution file in support of its disclaimer argument. On that page, however, is quoted language from several lines of the claim with an argument just prior stating that Silverman does not describe an axis of prices and all that is contained in the quoted language. Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why we should construe such general remarks as a disclaimer. We also have reviewed the remarks made by the then applicant that the applied prior art displayed prices for which orders exist, but do not agree that Patent Owner has shown why such comments amount to a clear disclaimer or disavowal of the scope of the term “price axis.” To disavow claim scope, “the specification or prosecution history [must] make clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citation, quotation, and alterations omitted).” slip op. at 14

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

    “icon at a location that corresponds to the desired price level along the price axis, the order icon indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange.” (Emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that an “order icon indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange” should be interpreted to mean “an icon indicating to the user that the user has an order at a particular level along the price axis, distinct from other orders at the same level.” PO Resp. 9. Petitioner argues that no construction of the phrase is necessary and that Patent Owner’s construction is inconsistent with Figure 3A, which shows the user’s order aggregated with other users. Pet. Reply 12. Petitioner further argues that any icon that indicates a user’s order, whether aggregated with other orders or separate, meets the claim term. Id. We agree with Petitioner. There is nothing in the language of claim 5 that requires indicating the specific user order (separating it out from all other orders) or indicating to the user that it is his order. If an order is placed by a user, resulting in the total quantity of orders placed at that same price to increase, the total number would indicate an increase, and thus, indicate the user’s order. Patent Owner argues that because claim 1 recites bid indicators and offer indicators, an order icon must represent something distinct from the 16 bid/offer indicators. PO Resp. 7–8. But even Patent Owner does not explain why an order icon cannot be one of the offer or bid indicators. Indeed, for the embodiment that Patent Owner directs attention to there is no distinction between offer and bid indicators with order icons (an order icon is one of the indicators). Id. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’056 patent to use “icons” and “indicators” interchangeably. See, e.g., Pet. 18–20. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that the “order icon” of claim 5 cannot be one of the offer or bid indicators. For all of the above reasons, we decline to interpret an “order icon indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange” to mean “an icon indicating to the user that the user has an order at a particular level along the price axis, distinct from other orders at the same level.”” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Notwithstanding the parties’ submissions of the level of ordinary skill in the art10, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is 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). 10 The parties’ submissions focus primarily on the degrees, occupations, and experience, as opposed to what the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have known at the time of the invention. As such, and as the triers of fact, based on the record before us, we do not find such information particularly helpful.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,533,056 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 7,533,056
• United Services Automobile Association v. Nader Asghari-Kamrani And Kamran Asghari-KamraniRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · CBM2016-00063 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting CBM review of claims 1–3, 5–28, and 30–55; it maintained the anticipation and obviousness determinations.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDecided for petitioner

    “misapply SightSound or Blue Calypso, as alleged by Patent Owner, in determining that the ’432 patent is a covered business method patent, and, therefore, is eligible for a review. Req. Reh’g 1–10 (citing SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338–40 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As we stated in the Decision, a covered business method patent is a patent that “claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” Dec. 5 (quoting AIA § 18(d)(1)). The legislative history of the AIA “explains that the definition of covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’” Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Final Rule) (quoting 157 CONG. REC. S5432 (daily ed.” slip op. at 4

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

    “requirements that an applicant must satisfy in order for a later filed application to be accorded the same effect as if it were filed on the same date as an earlier application by the same inventor disclosing the same invention. Those conditions are (1) copendency of the applications, and (2) reference in the later filed to the earlier filed application.” In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). Our reviewing court also explained that a prior-filed application that was not copending with the later-filed application cannot be used to antedate a reference. Id. at 1350.” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Decision, the allegedly technological features appear to have been known in the art, in light of the prior art in the record, and Petitioner has explained sufficiently why claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Dec. 12–13. We also explained that “following Petitioner’s showing that Norefors and Rajasekaran constitute prior art relative to the actual filing date of the ’432 patent, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that the” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,432
• Care N’ Care Insurance Co., Inc. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00063 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 6, 9, 15, and 20 are anticipated by Lech; and claims 6, 8, 12, 13, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Patent Owner proposes construing “field” as “computer software field.” Prelim. Resp. 24–33. We see no reason to interpret “fields” as “computer software fields.” We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is circular insofar as the construction includes the entire term being construed. See Pet. Reply 6. Further, as discussed below, even if “fields” were interpreted as “computer software fields,” the complete record persuades us that Petitioners have shown unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners propose that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “digital attachment” recited by claim 9 is “information that can be digitized.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 32, 33, 36; Ex. 1003, 11:18–19, 20– 35). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not construe this or any other term expressly. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “unitary data stream” as “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner states that it “agrees that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction.” PO Resp. 24; see also Pet. Reply 4 (stating “Patent Owner does not dispute that the correct construction of ‘unitary data stream’ for this proceeding is ‘transmitted set of information.’”). Based on our review of the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation.” slip op. at 7

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “device operatively coupled to a computer network receiving and transferring or transmitting contents of fields of a unitary data stream. Based on the full record before us, we determine that the subject matter of the challenged claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination. In particular, the complete record persuades us that the idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination represents a disembodied, well-known concept, i.e., a basic building block of human ingenuity and that does not rise beyond the level of an abstract idea. See Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patent are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“[I]n applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘“buildin[g] block[s]”’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303). We also agree with Petitioners that the” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,178,020
• Care N’ Care Insurance Co. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00062 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 30, 36, 42–45, and 49–52 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 27, 42–45, and 49–52 under § 102; and claims 30, 36, and 42 under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “unitary data stream” as “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner states that it “agree[s] that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction.” PO Resp. 24; see also Pet. Reply 5 (stating “Patent Owner does not dispute that the correct construction of ‘unitary data stream’ for this proceeding is ‘transmitted set of information’”). Based on our review of the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation. Patent Owner further proposes interpreting “fields” as “computer software fields.” PO Resp. 24–33. Petitioners dispute the proposed interpretation of “fields.” Reply 4–7. We see no reason to interpret “fields” as “computer software fields.” We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is circular insofar as the construction includes the entire term being construed. See Pet. Reply 5. Further, as discussed below, even if “fields” were interpreted as “computer software fields,” the complete record persuades us that Petitioners have shown unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners also propose interpreting “identities” recited by claims 42– 45 and 50–52 as “labels” (Pet. 4), and Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction” (PO Resp. 24). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe this or other claim terms further. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). III.” slip op. at 8

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept” and that “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335. Therefore, the Federal Circuit “f[ou]nd it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea” and that the “first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–1336. Here, claim 27 recites “a digital device,” “first and second networked components,” and a method that includes receiving and parsing a data stream with N fields and routing portions of the N fields to networked components. Claim 42 recites a “server” that receives a file with identifiable fields and copies a subset of the fields to correlated fields of a second file. Claim 50 does not expressly require any computers and recites a method that includes receiving a file with identifiable fields and copying a subset of the fields to correlated fields of a second file. The claims do not recite an improvement in computer-related technology, “such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” See Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335. Patent Owner’s asserted improvement is “an improvement to data processing performed by a mainframe computer system or similar systems, allowing processing text data with associated digital attachments” (PO Resp. 48), but the focus of the challenged claims is not on “processing text data with associated digital attachments.” The claims instead require receiving data with fields and routing or copying a portion or subset of the fields. The asserted improvement is not an improvement in “computer functionality” or capabilities, but instead, as Patent Owner concedes, “an improvement to data processing performed by a mainframe computer system or similar system.” See PO Resp. 48. As discussed further below, the challenged claims invoke computers merely as a tool. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338 (stating “patent-ineligible claims at issue in other cases . . . recited generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity”); see also Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) (stating that the “Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities”).” slip op. at 30

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “Based on our factual findings from the specification of the ’020 patent described above and the full record before us, we determine that the recited “digital device operatively coupled to first and second networked components” can be at least one of a personal computer, legacy computer, network server, or buffer computer. The complete record does not persuade us that the “digital device operatively coupled to first and second networked components” requires more than generic computer components. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357–58 (explaining computer implementation not enough when “the process could be ‘carried out in existing computers long in use’” or when “the computer implementation was purely conventional”). Considering the full record before us, for the reasons explained above, we determine that claim 27 recites well-known, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and generic computer components. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’”). When considered as an ordered combination, we determine that claim 27 adds nothing that is not already present when its elements are considered individually. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Considered ‘as an ordered combination,’ the computer components of petitioner’s method ‘ad[d] nothing . . . that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278 (explaining that a computer “employed only for its most basic function ... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”); cf. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258–59 (finding a computerimplemented method patent eligible where the claims recite a specific manipulation of a general-purpose computer such that the claims do not rely on a “computer network operating in its normal, expected manner”). Claim 27 “merely recite[s] the abstract idea . . . with the requirement . . . to perform it on a set of generic computer components”; does not “recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea”; and cannot “be read to ‘improve[] an existing technological process.’” See Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *7. As discussed above, claim 27 recites well-known, routine, conventional activities that are arranged conventionally and generically. See id. at *6 (stating that “an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”).” slip op. at 40

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “receiving a unitary data stream including N fields of data,” Petitioners cite column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 16 and Figure 2 of Lech, not just column 6, lines 11–16. Pet. 59–60. In the cited portion, we find that Lech discloses that “scanner 210 stores all of the information extracted off of hard copy document 100 in the scanner memory 220” and that the “extracted information is stored in two forms . . . as image information [and] textual information recognized on the hard copy document 100 by, for example, employing standard character recognition software.” Ex. 1009, 5:66–6:7. We find that the portion of Lech cited by Petitioners supports their contention that the “exemplary hard copy document 100 of Fig. 2 is preferably scanned in and fields of information on it are recognized using standard optical character recognition software.” Pet. 59–60 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 64; Ex. 1009, 5:66–6:8). We also agree with Petitioners that the stored information is sent to computer 230. The portion of Lech cited by Petitioners discusses first and second operational modes and explicitly states that, in the second mode of operation, the information is displayed on computer 230. Ex. 1009, 6:13–16. The first and second operational modes appear to differ by how much of the document is scanned, not where the scanned information is sent. See id. at 6:63–67 (describing that “[t]hese second modes of operation are efficient for small businesses . . . since the user does not necessarily have to store all of the information that appears on the hard copy document”). Moreover, we find that Lech expressly discloses that the “information from scanner memory 220 or main memory 250 is transmitted to computer 230.” Ex. 1009, 5:1–2. Petitioners provide an asserted understanding of Lech by one of ordinary skill in the art in an “Overview of Lech,” and Petitioners cite this same portion of Lech to assert that the “document image, the extracted textual information, or both are then sent to a computer.” Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 52). We, thus, find that Lech discloses that the output from the scanner is sent to the computer 230 and that the output includes information in fields, as shown in Figure 2 of Lech, and therefore, discloses “receiving a unitary data stream including N fields of data,” as required by claim 27. slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,178,020

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.