• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00594 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 45–46; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 118, 120–127. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 119. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52–55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 123, 127. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 123) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27

  • BurdenInstitution denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 45–46; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 118, 120–127. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 119. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52–55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 123, 127. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 123) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Certain terms recited in the challenged claims were construed during prior litigation of the ’451 patent, i.e., an ancestor of the challenged ’819 patent that Petitioner characterizes as “shar[ing] a near-verbatim written description with the ’819 patent”). Ex. 1023 (claim construction order in cases involving Microsoft and Apple); Ex. 2003, 5 (clarification of certain claim constructions on summary judgment); Pet. 8–9. Patent Owner advocates that we adopt such prior constructions in this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6. Although “Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time,” Petitioner takes the position that its asserted prior art “renders the challenged claims obvious under the district court’s constructions.” Pet. 10. And we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition “presents extensive arguments” that apply the district court’s constructions. See Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Pet. 9–10, 12–20, 33). We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1023, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 8–10. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1, 16, 23, and 26, as well as in certain dependent claims, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1023, 2–13; Ex. 2003, 5; Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1, 23, and 26, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1023, 22–23; Prelim. Resp. 10–12.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web.” Pet. 7. Petitioner adds that “[s]uch a person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–18). Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Dr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Dr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his “analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 13

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,606,819
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00593 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–62 were unpatentable under the asserted §103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 39; see also id. at 45–46 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt.” slip op. at 26

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner

    “E. Real Parties in Interest Petitioner identifies Google LLC and YouTube, LLC as real parties in interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Robocast, Inc., as a real party in interest. Paper 5, 2.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Dr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Dr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1123, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 22 and 46, as well as dependent claim 45, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1123, 2–13; Ex. 2107, 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. For purposes of this Decision, we accord all other terms recited in the challenged claims their plain and ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1123, 17–20, 26–29 (court adopting plain and ordinary meaning of “plurality of accessible resources,” “content,” “without requiring user input,” “in accordance with said show structure,” “providing,” and “search results”); see Prelim. Resp. 8 (Patent Owner advocating that “any additional claim language be[] accorded its plain and ordinary meaning”).” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,965,932
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00592 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 and 63–67 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals. Second, we have also considered Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, and he provides no meaningful additional information to support reading Shimizu as Petitioner advocates. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119, 121–128. In testimony not cited by Petitioner, Mr. Schmandt admits that “Shimizu does not appear to disclose further details about how duration information is specified or stored within its system, or whether such intervals between nodes can be changed.” Id. ¶ 120. This testimony undermines Petitioner’s position that Shimizu’s hypertext nodes include duration information. Mr. Schmandt elaborates in testimony that Petitioner cites, but does not explain: In a real-world implementation of the proposed combination, for example, the display time could have been specified within the node information structure 9 of Shimizu. I note that node information structure 9 in Shimizu also contains display procedure slot 62 (Fig. 6), which points to “a procedure program function used when the node in question is to be displayed on the screen.” (Shimizu, 6:52-55.) Shimizu thus contemplates that node information structure 9 may contain information about how the node will be displayed to the user, and as such, it would have been obvious that durational information could also have been included as part of node information structure 9. This durational amount could have been a default display time specified by the user, or a display time specific to the node in question, as explained above. * * * Shimizu itself clearly contemplates the ability to customize the display of nodes, and as explained above, node information structure 9 (Fig. 6) includes display procedure slot 62 which points to a program function or procedure used to display the node content, thus making clear that node information structure 9 can hold information about how the node will be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 124, 128. Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that Shimizu would need to be modified for its hypertext nodes to include duration information is strong evidence that Shimizu does not disclose hypertext nodes that include duration information. This testimony (from ¶ 124) also suggests that Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times could be included in the procedure program function to which display procedure slot 62 points, rather than in the hypertext node, thereby providing additional evidence Shimizu’s predetermined intervals and times are included in structure other than hypertext nodes. See also Ex. 1003, 6:52–55.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web.” Pet. 6–7. Petitioner adds that “[s]uch a person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–17). Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately 3-5 years of professional experience with these topics.” Prelim. Resp. 6. In addition, Patent Owner say that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Petitioner supports its proposal with testimony by Mr. Schmandt. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 16. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. See id. (Mr. Schmandt testifying that “Patent Owner’s proposed articulation is not meaningfully different” and that his “analysis, opinions and conclusions . . . would not change if Patent Owner’s articulation were applied”). Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the court’s claim-construction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1023, 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in each of challenged independent claims 1 and 63, as well as in certain dependent claims, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1023, 2–13; Ex. 2007, 5; Prelim. Resp. 9. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in each of challenged claims 1, 11, 12, and 64, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1023, 22–23; Prelim. Resp. 12–15.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “[i]f anything, Petitioner’s cited passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42; see also id. at 59 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). Several considerations support this understanding of Shimizu, including both Shimizu’s disclosure and certain testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt. First, the passage that Petitioner cites from Shimizu’s Summary of the Invention refers to “an application program” that causes switching of nodes displayed “at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1003, 5:11–14. The other passage that Petitioner cites similarly refers to “an application program” that may be displayed by reading node information within “a predetermined time.” Id. at 3:12–16. Although not cited by Petitioner, Shimizu also states: As described, the hypertext apparatus of the invention offers a user interface capable of putting into a desired order the links between the nodes to be managed and of manipulating the established link order. This makes it easy to create illustratively an application program allowing the display of node contents to be switched in a desired order and at predetermined intervals on the hypertext apparatus. Id. at 9:60–66. All of these passages are more consistent with Patent Owner’s position that the predetermined time or intervals are included in the application program rather than in the hypertext nodes. Petitioner does not provide persuasive argument or evidence to show that Shimizu should instead be read as describing hypertext nodes that include predetermined times or intervals.” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,965,932
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00591 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 22–36 and 39–45 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted obviousness grounds would succeed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “passages appear to suggest to the contrary that these ostensible default duration parameters would instead be features of the application programs used for managing Shimizu’s alleged show structures.” Id. at 42–43; see also id. at 48 (“[T]he passages Petitioner relies on teach only that the ‘predetermined time’ would be associated with the application program used to display the nodes.”). We agree with Patent Owner. In its Summary of the Invention, Shimizu describes “mak[ing] it possible to build with ease an application program illustratively causing the display of the nodes to be switched in a specific order and at predetermined intervals.” Ex. 1103, with the predetermined intervals being included in the application program, rather than the hypertext nodes. Similarly, in its Description of the Related Art, Shimizu describes “mak[ing] it possible to create an application program that may be displayed on the screen by reading, from primary or secondary storage and within a predetermined time, the node information held by the nodes that are linked sequentially starting from a particular node.” Id. at 3:12–16 (emphasis added). This passage, too, is better read as disclosing that the predetermined times are included in the application program, rather than the hypertext nodes. Neither of Petitioner’s cited passages states that the hypertext nodes include predetermined intervals/times.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “1 Petitioner filed a paper explaining its basis for filing multiple petitions challenging the ’451 patent and arguing that we should not exercise discretion to deny one of the petitions pursuant to the guidance in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 59 (“Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.”). Paper 3. Patent Owner filed an objection to Petitioner’s filing of multiple petitions, arguing that we should deny one of them pursuant to the Trial Practice Guide’s guidance. Paper 8. Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach whether multiple petitions are appropriate to challenge the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 3

  • Parallel petitionsNot reached

    “1 Petitioner filed a paper explaining its basis for filing multiple petitions challenging the ’451 patent and arguing that we should not exercise discretion to deny one of the petitions pursuant to the guidance in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 59 (“Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.”). Paper 3. Patent Owner filed an objection to Petitioner’s filing of multiple petitions, arguing that we should deny one of them pursuant to the Trial Practice Guide’s guidance. Paper 8. Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not reach whether multiple petitions are appropriate to challenge the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web,” and “could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 13–18). Patent Owner, without citing evidence, contends that a skilled artisan “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent, and experience with, or exposure to, topics in computer networking, multimedia, and web systems”; “would also have approximately 3–5 years of professional experience with these topics”; and “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and which is supported by expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, we do not see a substantial difference between the parties’ proposals. Thus, our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,155,451
• Google LLC / Youtube, LLC v. Robocast, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00590 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–21, 37, and 38 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “16, 5:11–14) describes the hypertext nodes as including the predetermined times or predetermined intervals (what Petitioner argues is the duration). As Patent Owner argues, “even if these ‘predetermined times’ or ‘predetermined intervals’ could be considered relevant default duration parameters, the Petition fails to prove that they would be included within Shimizu’s hypertext nodes—i.e., the putative claimed ‘nodes’ —as the governing claim construction expressly requires.” Prelim. Resp. 45; see also id. at 58–59 (“[T]he passages relied on do not provide any specifics as to how duration information would be implemented. Instead, they are merely speculative and aspirational statements, postulating only about what is ‘possible.’ . . . [I]t is not sufficient for Shimizu to simply teach a time interval between nodes. Rather, . . . the node itself must ‘include . . . the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.’ The Petition fails to provide any argument or evidence demonstrating that the described predetermined intervals are included in Shimizu’s nodes.” (quoting Ex. 1023, 16 (emphasis Patent Owner’s))).” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “possessed a bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of experience developing and implementing network-based computer systems, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web,” and “could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–18).” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The Microsoft court provided reasoned constructions, which Patent Owner contends that we should adopt. Ex. 1023. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). Petitioner does not allege any error in the Microsoft court’s decision or provide any alternative constructions. We adopt the Microsoft court’s constructions of “show structure of nodes” and “nodes” for purposes of this Decision. Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “16, 5:11–14) describes the hypertext nodes as including the predetermined times or predetermined intervals (what Petitioner argues is the duration). As Patent Owner argues, “even if these ‘predetermined times’ or ‘predetermined intervals’ could be considered relevant default duration parameters, the Petition fails to prove that they would be included within Shimizu’s hypertext nodes—i.e., the putative claimed ‘nodes’ —as the governing claim construction expressly requires.” Prelim. Resp. 45; see also id. at 58–59 (“[T]he passages relied on do not provide any specifics as to how duration information would be implemented. Instead, they are merely speculative and aspirational statements, postulating only about what is ‘possible.’ . . . [I]t is not sufficient for Shimizu to simply teach a time interval between nodes. Rather, . . . the node itself must ‘include . . . the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.’ The Petition fails to provide any argument or evidence demonstrating that the described predetermined intervals are included in Shimizu’s nodes.” (quoting Ex. 1023, 16 (emphasis Patent Owner’s))).” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,155,451
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00279 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing and instituted review of claims 1–4 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Kovatch and Burrows.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the 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.” slip op. at 3

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

    “For purposes of this Decision, we thus make a preliminary determination that collateral estoppel precludes Patent Owner from relitigating the issue of whether Kovatch teaches a ranking associated with web site addresses indicating the order in which to access a plurality of preselected web sites. In challenging independent claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kovatch and Burrows, the Petition presents an element-by-element analysis to support its position. Pet. 14–32. That analysis relies on Kovatch’s disclosure of the HeyAnita system for accessing web sites to retrieve information a user requested, and relies on Burrows for disclosure of a system for ranking database records that are “presented to the users in a rank order where the pages having a higher rank are presented first.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1006, 27:28–32, 32:14–47). Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to apply Burrows’s numbered ranking and polling approach to Kovatch’s destination tree to better identify and present the records of the most interest to the user.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:56– 58). In particular, because Burrows explains that “there needs to be a way to rank order the list in a meaningful manner,” Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Burrows’s numbered ranking to Kovatch’s destination tree web pages to provide those of interest first.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 115); Ex. 1006, 27:28–29. Petitioner’s element-by-element analysis explains Petitioner’s position as to how each limitation of independent claims 1 and 2 is met within such a combination. Id. at 14–32. Although Patent Owner makes a number of arguments in its Preliminary Response why the combination does not meet certain limitations, those arguments are precluded by our preliminary determination that collateral estoppel applies. See Prelim. Resp. 29–44.7 We have thus re-evaluated the parties’ arguments in light of the findings made in the 846 IPR, and affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kovatch and Burrows. We accordingly grant Petitioner’s Rehearing Request and institute an inter partes review of all claims on all grounds asserted in the Petition.8 See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 20

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel must show: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against who collateral estoppel is being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Google, 54 F.4th at 1381. Each of these requirements appears to be met with respect to the issue of whether Kovatch discloses rankings associated with the order in which web site addresses are accessed. First, the claim limitations at issue in the two proceedings are sufficiently similar to raise the issue of collateral estoppel. See Ohio Willow Wood, 735 F.3d at 1342 (“If the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity, collateral estoppel applies. . . . Thus, the mere use of different words in these portions of the claims does not create a new issue of invalidity.”). For example, claim 1 of the ’705 patent recites “a rank number assigned to each one of said web sites and stored in said database” and “access[ing] one of said web sites having the highest said rank number,” while claim 10 of the ’431 patent recites “a ranking associated with each said web site address, said ranking indicating the order in which the plurality of pre-selected web sites are accessed.” Ex. 1001, 19:58–59, 19:65–66; 846 IPR, Ex. 1001, 21:9–11.” slip op. at 18

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

    “determination that collateral estoppel precludes Patent Owner from relitigating the issue of whether Kovatch teaches a ranking associated with web site addresses indicating the order in which to access a plurality of preselected web sites. In challenging independent claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kovatch and Burrows, the Petition presents an element-by-element analysis to support its position. Pet. 14–32. That analysis relies on Kovatch’s disclosure of the HeyAnita system for accessing web sites to retrieve information a user requested, and relies on Burrows for disclosure of a system for ranking database records that are “presented to the users in a rank order where the pages having a higher rank are presented first.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1006, 27:28–32, 32:14–47). Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to apply Burrows’s numbered ranking and polling approach to Kovatch’s destination tree to better identify and present the records of the most interest to the user.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:56– 58). In particular, because Burrows explains that “there needs to be a way to rank order the list in a meaningful manner,” Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Burrows’s numbered ranking to Kovatch’s destination tree web pages to provide those of interest first.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 115); Ex. 1006, 27:28–29.” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,721,705
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00485 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–10 on all petition grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “second German priority application do not disclose every limitation of independent claims 1 and 7 of the ’430 patent. Figure 1 does not depict a barcode under the flange, but rather the use of raised areas on the side of the capsule that act as an identifier. Ex. 1047, Fig. 1. Figure 2, coupled with its associated description, might suggest that the barcode could be on the portion of the base element facing away from the membrane,9 but this figure does not disclose many of the other elements of the claim, including holding arms, a drop box, annular convexity and concavity, and a pump to supply water to the single-serve capsule. Pet. 41; Ex. 1047, 9:21–24, Fig. 2. We also determine that Patent Owner does not sufficiently demonstrate that Figures 16–18 of the second German priority application provide adequate disclosures showing that the inventors were in possession 9 We question whether the second German priority application supports placing a barcode under the flange. The application states that the barcode could “be provided on that side of the peripheral region of the basic element which is directed away from the membrane.” Ex. 1047, 9:21–24. This statement is rather ambiguous as to where the “peripheral region” is that is “directed away from the membrane.” The text goes on to explain, however, that “[t]his barcode,” i.e., the barcode that is “directed away from the membrane,” “is read by a detector 13,” which in Figure 2 is oriented to read a barcode on the top surface of the flange. Id. at 9:25–26, Fig. 2. This suggests that the barcode is not on the bottom side of the flange and that arrow 15 is pointing to the outer portion of the peripheral region that is not covered by the membrane, and not necessarily the bottom of the flange. First, the second German priority application describes the use of “an identifier” that is read by a “sensor/detection means” and then compared to a stored identifier. Ex. 1047, 2:29–31. In Figure 2 the identifier may be a barcode and the detection means is detector 13. Id. at 9:11–26. In Figures 16–18, however, element 2.4.2 is not an identifier, but rather a “a form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or a detection means.” Id. at 12:22– 24 (emphasis added). As such, it is unclear how this disclosure would demonstrate possession of the disputed claim limitation, when combined with the other limitations of claims 1 and 7 as a whole. Second, it is not evident that the toothed rings of Figures 16–18 are on the underside of the flange, as asserted by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 42 (asserting that a barcode “could be located on the bottom side of the flange instead of the toothed ring”); Prelim. Sur-reply 4. The second German priority application states that the “form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or detection means 2.4.2” is located in the “outer region” of the peripheral region 2.4. Ex. 1047, 12:22–24. We are directed to no evidence that this “outer region” is on the bottom of the flange, and Figures 16–18 each appear to depict means 2.4.2 on, or forming, the outer circumference of the flange.11 Id. at Figs. 16–18, 6:8–11 (noting that the toothed ring is provided “on the outer circumference of the periphery”). 10 The parties dispute whether Figure 16 of the second German priority application discloses annular convexity and concavity. Pet. 42–43; Prelim. Resp. 45–46; Prelim. Reply 4–5; Prelim. Sur-reply 4. At most, the parties identify a material issue of fact with respect to these two claim elements that is best resolved on a full trial record. 11 At first blush, Figure 17A appears to show means 2.4.2 under a portion of element 27 of the capsule. Ex. 1047, Fig. 17A; Prelim. Sur-reply 4 depicted in Figures 16–18, which rely on toothed rings physically interacting with either the chamber, retaining arms, or a pinion. Ex. 1047, 12:22–31, 13:8–18. The second German priority application explains that means 2.4.2 physically interacts with retaining arms 30 (embodiments of Figures 16 and 17) or a pinon (embodiment of Figure 18), and if means 2.4.2 were not present in these embodiments, the capsule would either “drop through into a waste container” or could not be inserted through the insertion shaft. Id. at 12:22–27, 13:9–12, 13:16–35 (noting that in the embodiment disclosed in Figure 18 a pinon interacts with means 2.4.2 and only when means 2.4.2 “is formed complementary to the teeth of the means” can the capsule be inserted). Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain how a barcode could replace means 2.4.2 in these embodiments and still retain the capsule within the device or allow the capsule to enter the insertion shaft.” slip op. at 14

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

    “First, Yoakim expressly states that the capsule may use a “barcode,” and the plain and ordinary meaning of this term is a code that satisfies the construction adopted by the district court. To the extent Patent Owner has reason to believe that Yoakim does not apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “barcode,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this fact, it is encouraged to present such evidence during trial. Second, in this obviousness inquiry the question is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art is more likely to adopt a barcode or a bitcode, but whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to applying the “barcode” of Yoakim under the flange of the capsule. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Our case law is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it is a suitable option.’”). On that point, Jarisch expressly discloses the benefits of doing so. Ex. 1005 ¶ 22 (noting that applying the code at the bottom of the rim lowers the risk of the code becoming unreadable). As such, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently identifies where Yoakim discloses a barcode and explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have placed such a “barcode” on the bottom of the capsule’s flange.” slip op. at 27

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution of the ’430 patent and that Rossi and Castellani were mentioned in the inter partes reviews that were cited on the IDS. Pet. 19; Prelim. Resp. 23. We need not determine whether Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied based on these disclosures, however, as Part 2 of the analysis, which we address below, is dispositive. a) Factor (c)—the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for a rejection The Examiner did not issue any rejections during prosecution of the ’430 patent. Ex. 1002, 232–234. As the reasons for allowance, the Examiner stated: [A]llowance of claims 1 and 21–29 is indicated as none of the cited prior art discloses or suggests the flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side; a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity; and an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange, the identifier being a barcode, wherein the beverage machine, by reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector, is configured to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine, and only if the beverage machine determines that the single-serve capsule belongs to the group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine is the pump controlled to push the water into the single-serve capsule. Id. at 233. In arriving at this conclusion, the Examiner did not cite or discuss the disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, or Castellani. Id. at 232–234. Yet, these references appear, based on the current record, to expressly teach or allowance, including a “flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 197, Fig. 6); “a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 128–129, 197, 414); “an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 22) that is “a barcode” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 496, 525); and “reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector . . . to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 192, 477, 494–496, 525; Ex. 1005 ¶ 82; Ex. 1041, 3, 11). As such, to the extent the asserted combination of prior art references was evaluated during prosecution of the application that matured into the ’430 patent, we determine that such evaluation was minimal.” slip op. at 37

  • Other 314aDecided for petitioner

    “B. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that “[t]he parties have been embroiled in disputes involving substantive claims for infringement for both the ’430 Patent and the Jarisch 929 reference,” and “it is unnecessary to open up yet another front in this dispute.” Prelim. Resp. 68–69. As such, Patent Owner requests that we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id. Patent Owner directs our attention to no case in which the Director has exercised discretion to deny a petition merely because the same patent was the subject of a co-pending district court infringement action. Indeed, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) specifically contemplates such a scenario. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 40

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,230,430
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–16 of the ’923 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). One may show support for the claims of a later application by showing that a single, earlier application provides written description support for the claims. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, MBH v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a patentee “cannot distinct previous applications”). Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 10

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

    “7. Analysis: Reasons to Combine the References Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yoakim, Jarisch and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/espresso machines.” Pet. 43. “Yoakim and Jarisch both improve the optimization of beverage parameters in a single-serve brewing system, and use optical codes read by the machine to achieve this.” Id. “Rapparini further improves the the wall of the capsule body like those used in Yoakim and Jarisch.” Id. at 43–44; see id. at 50–51, 53–54 (Petitioner’s further argument that Rapparini discloses “an optimized capsule structure that is stiffer and more stable” by virtue of radially spaced and vertically oriented ribs and grooves, where the vertically oriented grooves are free from extending entirely to the bottom region of the capsule). Petitioner directs us to additional evidence tending to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to modify Yoakim’s device, to include the code placement of Jarisch and the grooves and ribs of Rapparini, to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success. Id. at 44–48.” slip op. at 27

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,994,923
• Snap Inc. v. You Map Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 31, 2023 · IPR2022-00568 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Feldman and Jackson, or Feldman, Jackson, and Rush; the contingent motion to amend is granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus two years’ work or research experience with location-based content delivery and/or visualization.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19– experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Shamos, testifies that he “generally agree[s]” with Petitioner’s proposed articulation, and provides substantially the same expression of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Shamos Decl. ¶¶ 30–31. In this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Although Patent Owner appears to argue that applying the preference factors to a general score does not encompass weighting the general score’s components (see, e.g., id. at 10–12; Sur-reply 13–16), this is not reflected in Patent Owner’s proposed construction (PO Resp. 12). Patent Owner’s construction provides no limitation on how the preference factors are applied to a general score. See id. To the extent Patent Owner argues that the phrase “applied to,” as recited in the claim, excludes such component-based weighting, we disagree. Rather, the record better aligns with Petitioner’s argument that “applied to” involves a linear combination of values, which could be the values of the general score’s components. See Pet. 30–31. Petitioner’s position is supported by the plain language of the claim, the ’727 patent’s discussion of weighted aggregation, and Mr. William’s testimony—all of which indicate that weighting the component scores is encompassed by claim 1. As for the plain language, the claim does not define how the factors are “applied to” the general score. Rather, the claim only recites that they are. In the context of the claim, the preference factors are applied to the general score. Patent Owner does not dispute this. PO Resp. 12. Claim 1 further recites that the customized score is based on the application of the preference factors to the general score. Ex. 1001, 23:14–27. We note that the generate the combined ranking, which is then used for the recited selection. Beyond that, the claim does not specify how the two rankings are used or how the combined ranking must be generated. Thus, under the claim’s plain language, the customized score can be used to rank the posts and is based on the general score. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “adequately supported. We find that Mr. William’s declaration is adequately supported. This is not case where an expert “does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Rather, Mr. Williams adequately supports his testimony about the second preference factor with reasoning based on Jackson’s teachings about how the social-network distance is used to weight the global score. See, e.g., Williams Decl. ¶ 133 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 4A, 16:23–25, 58–60). weighting criteria can be used together. Id. ¶¶ 147–149 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–44:22, 5:53–58, 9:54–67, 13:17–22, 17:47–67). Mr. Williams’s analysis relies on Jackson’s discussion of using multiple factors to score a post. Ex. 1006, 17:47–55, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147; see also Pet. 42–43; Reply 9. Mr. Williams also cites Jackson’s discussion of how social-network distance and geographic distance can be used together. Williams Decl. ¶ 147 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–4:22). We agree with Petitioner that Jackson adequately supports this part of Mr. Williams’s analysis. Reply 7–9. Specifically, Jackson discloses that a determination may use social-network distance to “modify the criteria” that it uses to provide posts to users. Ex. 1006, 3:66–4:1, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Jackson further explains how geographic distance can be used in addition to other criteria: “Transmitting the post to the second computing device may be dependent upon determining that the criteria is met and determining that the posting location is within the threshold distance.” Id. at 4:19–22 (emphasis added), cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. This is consistent with Jackson’s teaching that a post may be recommended based on several factors and for several reasons. Id. at 17:47–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Also, Jackson explains how the global score, which Petitioner mapped to the recited “general score,” is used to generate a post’s score: “[A] particular post’s global score . . . is multiplied by, divided by, or summed with a distance between” a user and the post’s author. Id. at 9:54–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 148. Jackson weights a post’s global score against a position of the posts author in a social graph. Id. at 9:25–53. Mr. Williams testifies that it is obvious and conventional to generate the modified scores embodiment. Williams Decl. ¶ 144. This is supported by Jackson. In another example cited by Petitioner, Jackson multiplies a post’s global score by a geographic distance to generate a personal score. Id. at 21:60–22:5, cited in Pet. 37, 39, 43. Thus, Petitioner has shown Jackson teaches or suggests applying two different sets of preference factors to a post’s global score. Pet. 41 (citing Williams Decl. ¶ 144). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that neither Petitioner nor” slip op. at 31

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Jackson adequately supports this part of Mr. Williams’s analysis. Reply 7–9. Specifically, Jackson discloses that a determination may use social-network distance to “modify the criteria” that it uses to provide posts to users. Ex. 1006, 3:66–4:1, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Jackson further explains how geographic distance can be used in addition to other criteria: “Transmitting the post to the second computing device may be dependent upon determining that the criteria is met and determining that the posting location is within the threshold distance.” Id. at 4:19–22 (emphasis added), cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. This is consistent with Jackson’s teaching that a post may be recommended based on several factors and for several reasons. Id. at 17:47–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 147. Also, Jackson explains how the global score, which Petitioner mapped to the recited “general score,” is used to generate a post’s score: “[A] particular post’s global score . . . is multiplied by, divided by, or summed with a distance between” a user and the post’s author. Id. at 9:54–67, cited in Williams Decl. ¶ 148. Jackson weights a post’s global score against a position of the posts author in a social graph. Id. at 9:25–53. Mr. Williams testifies that it is obvious and conventional to generate the modified scores embodiment. Williams Decl. ¶ 144. This is supported by Jackson. In another example cited by Petitioner, Jackson multiplies a post’s global score by a geographic distance to generate a personal score. Id. at 21:60–22:5, cited in Pet. 37, 39, 43. Thus, Petitioner has shown Jackson teaches or suggests applying two different sets of preference factors to a post’s global score. Pet. 41 (citing Williams Decl. ¶ 144).” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,616,727 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,616,727
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–61 and 63–81 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Doud anticipates claims 19–61 and 63–75.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’740 patent. Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther

    “the application describe the claim limitations exactly,” the application must demonstrate to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants invented a composition including those limitations. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262. On its face, the range of “at least 0.01 wt. %” encompasses a range that is broader than 0.01–35 wt. %, and Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from merely a disclosure of 35 wt.% that the inventors were in possession of the entire claimed range for copper, cobalt, or nickel in the magnesium composition.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedOther

    “On this record, the term “at least 0.01 wt. %” in the ’740 patent encompasses values for nickel, copper, and cobalt that are higher than the 35 wt. % (nickel and copper) and 20 wt. % (cobalt) limits outlined in the parent and grandparent applications. Accordingly, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 of the ’740 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications. Challenged claims 20–61 and 63–75 depend from claim 19 and there is no argument presented that these claims have independent written description support in Doud. For example, there is no evidence presented that any of these dependent claims narrow the ranges for each of copper, nickel, and cobalt recited in in the ’295 application for these claims.7 Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Doud as prior art to challenged claims 19–61 and 63–75.” slip op. at 12

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

    “as the ’740 patent. For example, Doud and the ’740 patent both disclose a method of forming a novel magnesium composite that includes melting an AZ91D magnesium alloy containing 90 wt. % magnesium, 9 wt. % aluminum, and 1 wt. % zinc. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47; Ex. 1001, 21:43–51, 22:48–53, 33:32–43, 34:9–12. To this alloy is added either 7 wt. % nickel or 10 wt. % copper. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:48–51, 22:53–56, 33:35–36, 34:12–13. These additives are mixed in the magnesium alloy at a temperature that is less than the melting point of copper or nickel, and the casting is then cooled. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:51–54, 22:56–58, 33:35, 34:12-13. Doud reports that nickel and copper, when added to molten magnesium, will form Mg2Ni and CuMg2 intermetallic, galvanically-active, in situ precipitates. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12–13. Doud discloses that the dissolution rate of the resulting casting material is either 325 mg/cm2-hr (nickel) or 50 mg/cm2-hr (copper) in a 3% KCl solution at 90° C. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:60–62, 22:61–63, 33:41–43, 34:15–17. Doud also discloses that the average particle diameter of the additives used in the invention is generally “at least about 0.1 microns” and “typically no more than about 500 microns.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Petitioner explains how the identified disclosures of Doud anticipate independent claim 19. Pet. 39–40. Petitioner also identifies where the limitations of dependent claims 20–61 and 63–75 are disclosed in Doud. Id. at 41–45. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s anticipation arguments with respect to claims 19–61 and 63–75, apart from arguing that Doud is not prior art to these claims. Prelim. Resp. 27–39. demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 19–61 and 63–75 are anticipated by Doud.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740

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.