- Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00664 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success at least for claims 1, 9, and 17.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] of the ’352 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a discipline related to human-computer interaction, such as Human Factors, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years of experience working with touchscreen user interfaces. More education could substitute for less work experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Although we see no error in Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions, we do not believe it necessary to adopt them because the surrounding claim language sufficiently defines the scope for each of the respective “user interface” limitations.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner next addresses the claim term “input that is directed to a portion of” a user interface. Pet. 24–25. Petitioner explains that “[n]umerous claims recite navigational actions invoked by ‘input that is directed to a portion of’ the current screen,” such that “the input is directed to part of the screen, rather than a physical button, keyboard, or other input device external to the screen.” Pet. 24. According to Petitioner, “[t]he claim language does not require the input to be directed to a predefined location on the screen, such as a location marked by a virtual home button or other indicator.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). Referring to Figure 5GC of the Specification, Petitioner notes that “a user navigates from a wake screen to a home screen by an upward swipe ‘at location that corresponds to home affordance 552, as indicated by focus selector 5244.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 53:4–10). Petitioner next relies on other embodiments, which describe the swipe gestures being directed to a part of the screen without regard to a predefined location. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1001, 79:64–80:22) Considering Petitioner’s supporting arguments and evidence, and based on the limited record before us, we construe “input is directed to a portion of” the screen to mean the user input is directed to part of the screen (but not necessarily at a predefined location) rather than through another physical input device external to the screen. See id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,106,352 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00635 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, principally because Rothkopf did not disclose an electrode positioned on the carrier member.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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); see also Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (to anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a single prior art reference must expressly or inherently disclose each claim limitation”). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.” (second and third alterations in original) (quoting In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991))). slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“member.” On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Independent claim 1 recites “a carrier member formed from a transparent material.” Ex. 1001, 56:13. Independent claim 9 recites “a carrier member having a circular carrier profile and positioned over the circular rear opening.” Id. at 57:20–21. Independent claim 15 recites “a carrier member protruding outward from an external surface of the housing member.” Id. at 58:10–11. None of these phrases is written in the form of a “means for” performing a function, the Petition does not identify a recited function,5 and Petitioner does not address the issue of whether the overall limitation recites adequate structure for performing any such function. See 5 On the conference call, Petitioner represented that “the Petition identifies carrying or supporting electrodes to be the function of the carrier member.” Ex. 1051, 49:3–10 (citing Pet. 10–12). The cited section of the Petition quotes the Specification, not the claim. Pet. 10. However, the focus of a means-plus-function analysis is the function recited in the claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). And, the Petition associates the function of supporting the electrodes with “carrier assembly” not “carrier member.” See Pet. 10–11 (“Petitioner interprets the claim term ‘carrier assembly’ according[ly] to mean any appropriate structure that supports the electrodes and, optionally, optical components.”). Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The first step is to determine whether a claim limitation is drafted in means-plusfunction format, which requires us to construe the limitation to determine whether it connotes sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.”). Additionally, regardless as to whether “Courts have construed ‘member’ style claim terms as nonstructural” under the particular facts before those courts, it was incumbent upon Petitioner—particularly in light of the “carrier” modifier—to demonstrate that “carrier member” is a nonce term under the facts of the case before us, i.e. whether the term is a generic placeholder that a person of ordinary skill in the art of wearable electronic devices/watches would not recognize as a name for sufficiently definite structure. Pet. 11; Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (“In making the assessment of whether the limitation in question is a means-plus-function term subject to the strictures of § 112, para. 6, our cases have emphasized that the essential inquiry is . . . whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”); see id. at 1350 (explaining that a nonce word is a generic term “that reflect[s] nothing more than verbal constructs [that] may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”); see also Kyocera, 22 F.4th 1380 (the court, in Petitioner’s cited case, determining, as part of its analysis, that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the claimed ‘lifter member’ to have ‘a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure.’”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that “carrier member” is a means-plus-function term.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“We find to be persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that “the Petition fails to cite anything in Rothkopf that describes electrodes attached to the ‘rear cover 608.’” Prelim. Resp. 23. Rothkopf discloses several embodiments of varying configurations. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–27. Petitioner, in the block quoted contention above, stitches together several statements from various points in the Specification that individually are correct descriptions of an aspect of a particular embodiment or example but, together, fail to constitute a disclosure of an embodiment having electrodes positioned on the rear cover. For example, Rothkopf, in the paragraph 148 cited by Petitioner, states that “[i]n some embodiments, the biosensor module 710 includes the rear cover 608” and, “[a]s described in more detail . . . with respect to FIG. 16, the biosensor module 710 may include one or more light sources, one or more photodetectors, and one or more electrodes or conductive elements.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 148 (emphasis added). Thus, the biosensor module (mapped to the carrier assembly, not the carrier member) might include a rear cover and might include an electrode. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the electrode, when present, is positioned on the cover (mapped to the carrier member). Petitioner points to Rothkopf’s paragraph 201 as support for the proposition that “Rothkopf describes an embodiment where the electrodes are positioned on the cover 608.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 201). That paragraph provides that, “[a]s described above with respect to FIG. 6, in some embodiments, the biosensors are disposed relative to or attached to a rear cover 608 that is formed from an optically transparent material and is configured to be positioned with the opening of the housing 601.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 201. The paragraph does not describe an electrode as an exemplary biosensor in such embodiments. Rather, the paragraph goes on to describe the rear cover’s use with light sources 1611–1613 and detector 1614, i.e. optical sensor components. See id. (“The convex curved area of the rear cover 608 may include one or more windows or apertures that provide operational access to one or more internal components located within the housing. For example, the rear cover 608 may include an array of windows, each window including an aperture or opening for a respective light source 1611–1613 and/or the detector 1614.”). This description is consistent with Figure 16, which is relied on by Petitioner, where those optical sensor components are positioned on or under rear cover 608 (shaded orange in Petitioner’s annotated figure above) while electrodes 1601 and 1602 are positioned on the rear face of the housing (shaded in red) and thereby contact the user’s skin. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 190, 196 (“In this example [of Figure 16], a first electrode 1601 and second electrode 1602 are disposed on the rear face of the device 100. The first 1601 and second 1602 electrodes may be configured to make contact with the skin of the user’s wrist when the device is being worn.”). We determine that Petitioner has not shown adequately that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Rothkopf to disclose an electrode positioned on the carrier member, as recited in independent claims 9 and 15 and, by extension, claims 13 and 14, which depend from independent claim 9. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its anticipation challenge (Ground 1).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,987,054 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00728 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Masimo did not show a reasonable likelihood that the claimed design was obvious over Paulke, Yuen with Mendelson and Bushnell, or Fong with Bushnell.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“respective constructions of the ’936 patent, i.e., that the claimed design incorporates two arc-shaped portions residing on a rear face of an electronic device, we observe that one point of disagreement centers on the proposed presence of an “outer continuous circle” as is advanced by Patent Owner. See Prelim. Resp. 4. Although we agree with Petitioner that the “sidewall” of the arcs does not appear to be a claimed feature, careful review of the figures of the ’936 patent, particularly Figure 4, does appear to bear out the conclusion that the arc-shaped portions do incorporate a continuous circle.2 Accordingly, we adopt the claim construction that is advanced by Patent Owner. See, e.g., supra § I.C.2. We note, however, that even were we to adopt Petitioner’s claim construction, the ultimate outcome of this proceeding would be the same. That is so because, for reasons discussed below, we conclude that Patent Owner has identified sufficient deficiencies in Petitioner’s proposed grounds that preclude institution of inter partes review irrespective of any claim construction.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In assessing the parties’ views as to level of skill of a designer of ordinary skill in the art, we conclude that they are effectively the same. Indeed, the parties do not identify any material difference between the parties’ proposed assessments. Nevertheless, for clarity and completeness, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed assessment. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the claimed design of the ’936 patent. IV. ORDER It is ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for an inter partes review of the claim of the ’936 patent is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“(see, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 21–24), the arc-shaped portions of the ’936 design are thinner than those of Paulke’s Figure 1G, and the spacing of the arc-shaped portions in the ’936 patent is noticeably smaller than in Paulke. That enlarged spacing in Paulke eliminates any appearance of an outer continuous circle formed by the outer ring of the arc-shaped portions, which is present in the ’936 design. In that respect, we find credible Patent Owner’s argument that “the Paulke arc-shaped components have the appearance of two separate features rather than the unified circular appearance of arcs of the ’936 patent. Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 51–52). Additionally, the orientation of the arc-shaped portions in Paulke is rotated 90 degrees from that of the ’936 patent.5 In our view, there is a plausible argument to be made that the above-noted differences establish sufficient visual dissimilarities to remove Paulke from being considered a proper Rosen reference. Nevertheless, even were we to assume that Paulke is a proper Rosen reference, for the reasons discussed below, we do not find persuasive that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have made Petitioner’s proposed modifications to Paulke’s biosensor module, so as to arrive at the design of the ’936 patent.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness - DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00265 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that DeWaal, alone or with Schugar, renders claims 1, 4–15, 17–19, or 32 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“recited wager. Pet. 35. However, Petitioner does not explain adequately how this wager “coincides with each of the defined number of legs” of DeWaal’s bonus game (which Petitioner maps to the recited multi-outcome wagering event (id. at 23)) as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner refers to the player’s input for each round of bonus game. Id. at 35. As explained above, DeWaal discloses that a player’s selection of a winning outcome for each round of the bonus game is independent of the wager made by the player in the base game. As acknowledged by Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crevelt, DeWaal’s wager allows “a player [to] qualify for the bonus game,” but “players of the bonus event must also ‘make an input in association with the plurality of outcomes in each round as indicated by block 108’ in FIG. 3.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 141 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 129). Nor has Petitioner explained adequately how DeWaal identifies “players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs” of the bonus game “based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner again refers to the player’s input for each round of the bonus game. Pet. 40. The wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As noted above, Petitioner maps DeWaal’s base game wager to the recited wager. Pet. 35. However, Petitioner does not explain adequately how this wager “coincides with each of the defined number of legs” of DeWaal’s bonus game (which Petitioner maps to the recited multi-outcome wagering event (id. at 23)) as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner refers to the player’s input for each round of bonus game. Id. at 35. As explained above, DeWaal discloses that a player’s selection of a winning outcome for each round of the bonus game is independent of the wager made by the player in the base game. As acknowledged by Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crevelt, DeWaal’s wager allows “a player [to] qualify for the bonus game,” but “players of the bonus event must also ‘make an input in association with the plurality of outcomes in each round as indicated by block 108’ in FIG. 3.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 141 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 129). Nor has Petitioner explained adequately how DeWaal identifies “players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs” of the bonus game “based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner again refers to the player’s input for each round of the bonus game. Pet. 40. The wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that DeWaal discloses or teaches a wager as recited in independent claims 1 and 32. Petitioner’s reliance on Schugar to teach a partial buy-out offer does not correct this deficiency. See Pet. 55–58.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Independent claims 1 and 32 include several limitations involving “the wager.” First, the wager is received “in response to input from a player desiring to participate in the multi-outcome wagering event” (“receiving recitation”). Ex. 1001, 33:25–30, 40:7–11. The claims here further recite that the wager must “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Id. Second, the claims then identify “one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager.” Id. at 33:39–42, 40:20–23. Accordingly, we construe claims 1 and 32 to set out a method where the wager (1) enters the player into the event (and, thus, is set before the event) and (2) is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether the player remains eligible to win the event.2 Neither party offers a claim construction of this term.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,704,338 - PTAB · Jun 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00266 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13–16, 20–27, 29, and 30 on all proposed grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Schugar and DeWaal.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“above factors. In evaluating the factors, we take a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We are also guided by the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”),3 which provides several clarifications concerning the application of the Fintiv factors. One such clarification instructs that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Guidance Memo 3; see also id. at 7–8. Thus, we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution if a petitioner makes a stipulation similar to that provided in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (designated precedential in relevant part). Petitioner states that it “makes a Sotera-style stipulation not to pursue, in the co-pending proceeding district court proceeding, any argument that the Challenged Claims are invalid on any ground that was raised or could 3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. have been reasonably raised in this IPR, should a Final Written Decision issue here.” Pet. 66.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Thus, under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid 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”)). Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability of each challenged claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not address the rationale for combining the reference teachings as set forth in the Petition. Petitioner does not propose to modify Schugar’s games to incorporate features of DeWaal’s games. Rather, Petitioner proposes to implement “Schugar’s method of conducting a sport wagering event on DeWaal’s system hardware and thin-client configuration.” Pet. 22–23. Schugar’s system is designed for games hosted by a casino, and Schugar contemplates coordination between multiple casinos through the use of shared databases. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 105. Schugar further discloses use of its system in pari-mutuel betting. Id. ¶ 126. Based on the current record, we find persuasive the evidence showing that using a centralized server is the most practical way to conduct such betting arrangements and reduce the risk of cheating. See Pet. 25–26; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 78–79; Ex. 1004 ¶ 88. Although Patent Owner’s declarant testifies, “I don’t view Schugar’s teachings as requiring hardware, such as a central server, that supports a pari-mutuel pool” (Ex. 2001 ¶ 102), we accord little weight to this conclusory assertion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,970,969 - DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00264 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
Institution denied on the merits: Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 24, 28-30, 54-64, and 83 were unpatentable over DeWaal or DeWaal and Schugar.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 24, 28– 30, 54–64, and 83 of the ’716 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field; and at least two years of experience in the wager based gaming industry.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Petitioner also states that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard” and that the “description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill may make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art and does not propose its own level of skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We understand that these independent claims are written in a way that reads on some embodiments (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 14:61–15:19, describing an embodiment where the wager involves guessing the outcomes of 6 games and the “legs” are the outcomes of each of the underlying 6 games) but not all embodiments (see, e.g., id. at 23:9–34, describing an embodiment where the “legs” are the outcomes of each reel in a slot machine, and thus there is no evaluation of an initial wager to determine whether the player won at each leg—the wager is akin to an entry fee to play). Accordingly, we construe independent claims 1 and 83 to set out a method where the wager (1) enters the player into the event (and thus, is set before the event) and (2) is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether they remain eligible to win the event. We similarly construe independent claim 54 to require a system wherein the controller receives a wager “in response to input from a player desiring to participate in . . . wagering events” (and thus, before the event) and (2) the wager is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether they remain eligible to win the event.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s anticipation challenge does not adequately address the “wager” recited in the receiving and identifying limitations. In particular, the wager in DeWaal relied upon by Petitioner is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Pet. § IX.A.1.d; Ex. 1004 ¶ 57. Alternatively, DeWaal discloses that it could require a separate fee to enter the bonus game. Id. ¶ 83. In either case, the putative wager in DeWaal serves to allow entry into the event. Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how either wager serves to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. See Pet. § IX.A.1.f.; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 114–119. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 119, 128; see also Ex. 1007 ¶ 118 (“DeWaal’s identification of players that are eligible to win each round of the bonus event is ‘based on the wager,’ and more specifically based on the player’s input selection of one of the wagered upon potential outcome in each round.”) (emphasis added). That is, the player’s choice, not the relied-upon wager, determines whether the player advances at each leg. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 119 (“If at least one of the players picks (or makes an input associated with) the designated outcome in a first round, that player advances to a second round.”). As such, Petitioner does not sufficiently show that DeWaal describes “identifying one or more winners . . . based on the wager.” Similarly, even if we were to consider the player’s choice in DeWaal’s bonus event, such as whether to risk further play or take the buyout (e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 146), to be a form of wager, that wager would be different from the one required in claim 1. In particular, claim 1 requires the wager to be “in response to the . . . players desiring to participate in the . . . event” as well as to “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Ex. 1001, 32:27–30. Thus, by the time the player in DeWaal is making choices during the event, they have already expressed a desire to participate in the event, and any such “wager” to continue the event is tied only to that leg, not to “each of the defined number of legs.” In other words, claims 1 and 83 require the wager to be something that is set ahead of time, and to contain information that is used, at each leg, to evaluate whether that player remains eligible. Accordingly, for the reasons above, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently addressed each limitation of claims 1 and 83 and does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that DeWaal anticipates claims 1 and 83.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,424,716 - PTAB · Jun 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00267 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 7, 15, and 21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Scott.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’822 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s undisputed contentions on the current record that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner states that “[n]o terms of the ’822 Patent require construction beyond their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 10. For purposes of our Decision, which examines claim 1 below, we determine that it is not necessary to construe any particular term.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field; and at least two years of experience in the wager based gaming industry. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Pet. 10 (internal citations removed). Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,997,822 - PTAB · Jun 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00262 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1 and 10 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by DeWaal.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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 provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’341 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.08(a).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalNot reached
“one of a buy-out offer and partial buy-out offer” to the players during the wagering event. During prosecution of the ’341 patent, the examiner applied a prior art rejection upon construing the claim in the disjunctive form. Ex. 1002, 109 (Office Action, Oct. 28, 2014). That is, construing the language in the form of at least one of X and Y to be satisfied upon a showing in the art of either X or Y. The applicant, however, argued that the prior art needed to disclose both (i.e., the conjunctive form). Id. at 86, 88 (Applicant Response, Dec. 18, 2014). The examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection. Id. at 69 (Office Action, Mar. 12, 2015). Petitioner characterizes the applicant’s argument as a “plain and unmistakable statement[] of disavowal during the prosecution” of the disjunctive form (i.e., X or Y), thus limiting the term to the conjunctive form (i.e., X and Y). Pet. 18 (citing Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The prosecution history limits the interpretation of claim terms so as to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”)). Petitioner asserts, however, that Patent Owner has taken the position in district court that the disjunctive construction should be used. Pet. 19, n.4 (citing Ex. 1049 (Patent Owner’s Initial Infringement Contentions)). Thus, there is at least some indication of the plausibility of both constructions. Patent Owner has not yet entered any arguments in this case. We encourage further briefing on the construction of the “at least one of” term during trial.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,117,341 - DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00261 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–30 were unpatentable over DeWaal alone or with Schugar and Scott.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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 provided below, we determine Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’439 patent is unpatentable, we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“wager.” First, the wager is received “in response to the . . . players desiring to participate in the multi-outcome wagering event” (“receiving” limitation). The claim here further specifies that the wager must “coincide[] with each of the number of legs.”1 Second, the claim then identifies one or more winners “based on the wager” (“identifying” limitation). The claim here also” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“adequately address the specific “wager” recited in the receiving and identifying limitations. In particular, the wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. Alternatively, DeWaal discloses that it could require a separate fee to enter the bonus game. Id. In either case, putative wager in DeWaal serves to allow entry into the event. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more winners . . . based on the wager.” Similarly, even if we were to consider the player’s choices in DeWaal’s bonus event, such as whether to risk further play or take the buyout (e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 146), to be a form of wager, that wager would be different from the one required in claim 1. In particular, claim 1 requires the wager to be “in response to the . . . players desiring to participate in the . . . event” as well as to “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Thus, by the time the player in DeWaal is making choices during the event, they have already expressed a desire to participate in the event, and any such “wager” to continue the event is tied only to that leg, not to “each of the defined number of legs.” In other words, claim 1 requires the wager to be something that is set ahead of time, and to contain information that is used, at each leg, to evaluate whether that player remains eligible. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not addressed sufficiently each limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The other claims and ground addressed in the Petition are deficient for the same reasons. Petitioner’s position regarding independent claim 26 is effectively identical to that of claim 1. Pet. 55 (“DeWaal therefore discloses each limitation of Claim 26 for the reasons discussed above with regard to Claim 1.”). Similarly, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds bring in references for limitations regarding buy-outs and partial buy-outs, not for the wager limitations. See id. at 55–64.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,721,439 - Farmers Edge, Inc. / Farmers Edge (US), Inc. v. Agi Suretrack, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00166 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the Nadison 610, Johnson, and ISO11783 combination rendered them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, Preliminary Sur-reply, and evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’017 patent would have had: a bachelor’s degree in either electrical, computer, mechanical, or agricultural engineering or a similar degree and have at least 2 years of experience in heavy machinery telematics, and agricultural practice (including modern farming machinery and precision agriculture devices and systems), as well as networking and communications protocols specific to modern farming machinery and software development. Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See Prelim. Resp. 14. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts “[n]o terms need construction for this IPR” but “reserves the right to identify terms for construction as may become necessary in . . . ‘the District Court case’[] and to respond to any constructions that Patent Owner submits.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that no terms require construction” and also “reserves the right to identify terms for construction as may become necessary in the parallel district court litigation . . . and to respond to any construction that Petitioner may submit.” Prelim. Resp. 15. On this record, we determine that no claim term requires an express construction for the purpose of determining whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the ISO11783 requires a device to have a NAME field in order for the task controller to identify the device. See Ex. 1013, 12. However, we are not persuaded by Mr. Ault’s testimony or Petitioner’s arguments that the communication protocol must be defined in an implement profile such as the NAME field even if manufacturers use systems beyond those directly supported in the ISO11783. See Pet. 27–48; Ex. 1013, 28, 33; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64, 114–125, 162–167; Ex. 1014, 5, 9. The NAME field specifies ECU function and place in a network. See Ex. 1010, 9–10. However, it is not clear why any communication protocol would identify the function or place of an ECU in a network, which is the purpose of the NAME field. See Pet. 37–38 (“The NAME field includes a device class, manufacturer code, and identity number among other fields.”). Petitioner has not explained sufficiently otherwise. We further observe that Mr. Ault alludes that ISO11783 provides a standardized, and thus known, communication protocol that supports the use of proprietary communications simultaneous with standardized messages. Id. ¶ 64. Mr. Ault later surmises that “it would have been obvious to a POSITA to store proprietary message formats for manufacturers that use proprietary message format.” Id. ¶ 167. We observe that in paragraphs 63 and 64 of his declaration, Mr. Ault relies on Exhibit 1014, titled “An Electronic Communication Protocol for Agricultural Equipment,” for the proposition that ISO11783 “supports the use of proprietary communications simultaneous with standardized messages” and “[m]anufacturers are free to implement enhanced control and information systems beyond those directly supported in the standard.” Id. ¶ 64 (citing Ex. 1014, 7)7 (alteration in original). We understand this cited disclosure in Exhibit 1014 acknowledges that proprietary communications are beyond those directly supported in the ISO11783 and that enhanced control and information systems are required for proprietary communications. Id. Said another way, these statements are consistent with our understanding that ISO11783 does not, by default, teach proprietary communication protocols defined in the device description fields, e.g., NAME field. Ex. 1014, 7 (“ISO11783 does not provide a complete design that can be implemented without further considerations on agricultural equipment.”). That being the case, we agree with Patent Owner’s position that the ISO11783 does not itself “identify different proprietary formats (i.e., the communication protocol) used by a given implement from a stored collection of implement profiles.” Prelim. Resp. 21. 7 Petitioner cites to page 9, however, we use the stamped page numbers for the exhibit. Even assuming for the moment that proprietary message formats “indicate” communication protocols, Petitioner has still not explained sufficiently why a POSITA would store those proprietary message formats in the NAME field. As noted above, the NAME field specifies ECU function and place in a network. See Ex. 1010, 9–10. However, it is not clear why proprietary message formats would identify the function or place of an ECU in a network. See id.; see also Pet. 37 (“The NAME field includes a device class, manufacturer code, and identity number among other fields.”).” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,107,017
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.