- PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00158 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Pham and Wu, and granted joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“4. Conclusion for Claim 1 Having reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Pham and Wu. E. Conclusion on the Merits of the Petition We have found that the Petition warrants institution based on Petitioner’s showings for claim 1. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments about the other grounds, but they largely rely on the earlier unpersuasive arguments for claim 1. On whole, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the Petition warrants institution.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with IPR2023- 00703 is granted, and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Fortinet, Inc. are joined as a party in IPR2023-00703;” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“based on the related district court matters identified above. Opp. Mot. Join 4–12. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the copending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Reply Mot. Join 4–5), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.”) (Director Review). Patent Owner focuses its analysis on factor 5 and proposed factor 8. Id. at 13–15. As to factor 5, which looks for an explanation of the time between petition filing, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently explained the time between Cisco’s petition and its own when it noted that it merely filed its petition and request for joinder when the statute permitted it. Reply Mot. Join 6 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)). In particular, the statute requires the earlier petition to be instituted before joining a party. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (requiring joinder to be to instituted proceedings). Thus, the time elapsed between filings is motivated by the statutory and regulatory procedures. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (requiring the joinder motion to be filed “no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested”). As to proposed factor 8, we agree with Petitioner that the present situation does not apply. Reply Mot. Join. 6–7; see also Shenzhen, IPR2018-00761, Paper 15, 18–19 (Saindon, concurring) (“There are legitimate reasons why a petition may be filed after [a decision on institution)].”). Proposed factor 8 analyzes situations where a second petitioner strategically waits to file its petition to see what happens to an earlier filed petition. Shenzhen, IPR2018-00898, Paper 9 at 7. If both of the petitioners were sued at or around the same time, but one waits until the other goes first, it can lead to an inference that the delay in filing a different petition was to gain an unfair advantage. Id. at 14 (looking with disfavor on a wait-and-see strategy to use the first petition as a “test case”). That is not the case here, where the second petition is a copycat petition. The Petition here cannot be said to have been filed second in order to glean knowledge from the first petition because it is the same petition. Thus, we do not see this Petition as being a strategic attempt to use Cisco’s petition as a “test case,” and do not consider factor 8 to weigh toward denial. Finally, reviewing factor 6, we do not find that granting Petitioner’s motion to join would cause an undue burden on the Board. Petitioner is serving as an “understudy” and thus, from our perspective, Petitioner’s presence does not change the existing Cisco IPR. Patent Owner argues that if Cisco were to settle then Petitioner would continue the proceeding. Opp. Mot. Join. 15. We do not see this as an undue burden in this situation. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder serves to lessen our burden (as well as Patent Owner’s) compared to the scenario of it filing its own unique petition. We do not see the present case as similar to the Apple case, in which a copycat joinder petition was denied. See Apple, IPR2020-00854, Paper 9. That case, in our view, turned on the fact that the petitioner had already filed a petition that was denied on the merits. See id. at 4 (“In effect, it would be as if [the petitioner] had brought the second challenge to the patent in the first instance,” and labeling this a “serial attack.”). The situation here is not analogous to the Apple case because this is Petitioner’s only petition against the ’436 patent. The Petition is not a “serial attack” on the ’436 patent, it is merely Petitioner’s statutorily required vehicle to join as a party to an existing petition. Accordingly, we do not find factor 6 to weigh towards denial. Reviewing the General Plastic factors as a whole, including proposed factor 8, we find no factors to weigh toward denial and decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,566,612 - PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00099 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds and granted joinder to IPR2023-00673.
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). 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 that 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 ’436 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“compressed, or use security protocols, then the packets transit the packet engine. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 49, 51, 53). Patent Owner argues that only the SA parameter association task in Pham may be offloaded. Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38, 51). Patent Owner’s argument here implies that the filtering function remains at the ingress processor and that some packets will be filtered and never reach the packet engine. See id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 38); Ex. 1004 ¶ 38 (“In the preferred embodiments of the present invention, the ingress processors 30, 34 are tasked with filtering and routing functions . . . .”). The statement Patent Owner relies on is not in the same section as the one Petitioner relies on. In other words, it does not appear on this record that we can limit the disclosure of paragraph 51 based on the statements in paragraph 38. On this record, we are not persuaded that only the SA parameter association task can be offloaded. As Pham notes, tasks can be moved between processors to perform load balancing. Ex. 1004 ¶ 54. We see no disclosure that prevents certain tasks from being load balanced or otherwise tasked to the security processor.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“find them persuasive on this record. Id. at 32–33. At a high level, Patent Owner’s arguments are that Petitioner’s modification to Pham would “increase[] complexity and resources.” Id. at 33. On this record, this argument is unpersuasive because even if the addition of Wu’s intrusion detection system was somehow more complex, the reason to combine it is to gain certain beneficial features. See, e.g., Pet. 30–31. Patent Owner’s arguments do not show that the alleged increase in complexity would somehow dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from including these beneficial features. See, e.g., Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (alteration in original); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”).” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“based on the related district court matters identified above. Opp. Mot. Join 4–12. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the copending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Reply Mot. Join 4–5), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,685,436 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 17, 2024 · IPR2022-00615 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 16 is unpatentable as obvious over Ellsberry; the Board did not reach the Perego-422 grounds because Ground 3 was dispositive.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“We entered an Order for Petitioner to complete the additional discovery as authorized by the Director, and for the parties to propose a briefing schedule for the additional discovery. Paper 42. Petitioner filed the authorized additional discovery as exhibits and a Summary of Responses to the Additional Discovery (Paper 46) along with a Motion to Seal (Paper 43), which we granted (Paper 49). We then authorized a schedule for the parties to brief the applicability of the additional discovery to the issue of whether Google was a real party in interest and the Petition thus time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Papers 51–57. After consideration of the evidence, we determined by Order on Remand from the Director (Paper 62 (parties and Board), Paper 64 (public)) that Google was not a real party in interest and that this proceeding thus was not time-barred.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“After briefing on the additional discovery but before our Order on Remand from the Director, Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (“the Micron entities”) filed a petition and requested joinder to this proceeding. IPR2023-00203, Papers 1, 3. We granted the Micron entities’ petition for inter partes review and joined them as parties on the petitioner side of this case. Id. at Paper 8. A copy of that institution decision was entered in this proceeding. Paper 58. We refer to Samsung and the Micron entities together as “Petitioner” in this Decision.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we accept Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art except that we omit the qualifiers “at least” before years of education and experience because they render the level ambiguous and may encompass levels that are beyond ordinary. Otherwise, we find Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art consistent with the ’912 patent and the applied prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“However, the subsequent emphasized sentences (id. at 8:54–60) could only be understood in favor of Petitioner’s interpretation. If “the command signal is passed through to both associated ranks” and “the command signal is sent to both memory devices,” each rank must have only one memory device. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that this passage means that a rank may have only one memory device. Patent Owner argues that this paragraph of the ’912 patent (id. at 8:44–64) must be read in conjunction with its Figures which show multiple memory devices per rank. PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:31–38, 20:64–65, 22:34–35, Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A; Ex. 2062 ¶¶ 106–107). However, the disputed paragraph refers to “certain embodiments” which do not necessarily correspond exactly to what the Figures depict, and the Figures are described as “exemplary” and “compatible with” or “in accordance with certain embodiments described herein.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:32–48. We find no statement here or elsewhere in the ’912 patent that a rank must include multiple memory devices, and cannot include a single memory device.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,619,912 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,619,912 - Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedRehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claim 3 unpatentable as obvious over Eray-WO799, revising the final written decision’s outcome for that claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“As stated in our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art and found that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Dec. 6–7 (citing Pet. 8; PO Resp. 18). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Daniel van der Weide, supported Petitioner’s definition, which was adopted for this proceeding. Ex. 1003 ¶ 25. Dr. van der Weide defined himself as “a person of more than ordinary skill in the art during the relevant timeframe” because “[b]y 2010, [he] held a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, and [he] had at least” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,165,240 - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the preliminary construction of “transaction data.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s embedded token, i.e., the output interface of the transaction card. See Ex. 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. Such claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment. We therefore do not limit the claimed “transaction data” and instead preliminarily construe that term as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. As described above, the claimed transaction data must come from the output interface of a transaction card. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“The dispute relates to whether the ’030 application describes the claimed “smart telephone” accepting transaction data and executing coded instructions to convert the analog signal to digital data representing transaction data as digital data. See Pet. 14–15, 19–27. In Petitioner’s view, that term is supported only by language added to the “Brief Summary of the Invention” during prosecution of the application resulting in the ’286 patent. Id. at 17. In contrast, argues Petitioner, the corresponding section of the ’030 application instead describes transmitting sound to a PC, not a smart telephone. Id. at 19–26. Patent Owner submits that the ’030 application describes generating sounds from a smart phone and using a “key jack sound pass generator” to communicate sounds. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner contends that the claim language is supported by disclosure of receiving the audio signal at a microphone port and converting the signal to transaction data. Id. at 16–18. Patent Owner points also to description of direct communication between a “client device” and server. Id. at 19. On the present record, we find that Petitioner, at this stage in the proceeding, has shown sufficiently how it contends that the earliest possible effective filing date for claims 1–4 of the ’286 patent is March, 3, 2015, such that the Cho, Aaron, Carpenter, and de Geer references qualify as prior art. Patent Owner has identified a factual dispute regarding the significance of the ’030 application’s disclosures, and we view that dispute as best resolved through trial.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) provides that one of the “Requirements of Petition” is that “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” “Whether a non-party is a RPI is a ‘highly fact-dependent question’ and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.” SharkNinja Operating LLC. v. IROBOT Corp., No. IPR2020-00735, 2020 WL 6050687, at *4 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2020) (precedential) (citing Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (Paper 148) (precedential) (citing Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012))). Here, addressing whether TCH is an unnamed RPI would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. There is no allegation or evidence that TCH is “barred or estopped from this proceeding or that Petitioner purposefully omitted [TCH] to gain some advantage.” SharkNinja at *4. Rather, Patent Owner argues that for “once again willfully fail[ing] to identify TCH as a real party in interest, . . . the Petition should be denied on that basis.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In other words, Patent Owner contends only that we deny institution because of “the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected under our precedent.” SharkNinja at *4. We understand that” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - Ironsource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · PGR2022-00053 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable under collateral estoppel; revised substitute claims 23–37 are allowed because Petitioner did not prove them unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided 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 (quoting In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Collateral estoppel may also operate to bar re-litigation of common issues in actions involving different but related patents. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 252 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Amgen, Inc. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 98 F.3d 1328, 1329–32 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We are persuaded that each of the four Google requirements is satisfied and, accordingly, agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’256 patent are unpatentable in light of our Final Written Decision in PGR2021-00096.” slip op. at 13
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). But “failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims” is what Petitioner’s analysis of the claim limitations appears to do. Petitioner’s argument that “the focus of the claims” is captured by a single claim element (f3) not only ignores that that limitation recites performing two specific software tasks simultaneously—which we are not persuaded is an abstract idea—but also asks us to disregard multiple technical aspects recited in the claims, such as identifying a link, determining whether an installation client is available on the device, invoking the installation client, and redirecting to the device an app store. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:12–41; Revised MTA 24–25. That is, under Step 2A of the Guidance, we are neither persuaded that limitation f3, which Petitioner points us to, recites an abstract idea (Prong 1), nor that the other limitations recited in the independent claims fail to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2). Petitioner characterizes the claims as directed to multitasking, which Petitioner describes as an example applied to improve a user experience, i.e., as related to organizing human activity. Pet. 29. Although the Guidance recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity, including certain activity between a person and a computer, as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we are not persuaded that the claims here fall within the scope of such activity. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships as organizing human activity). The claimed invention may result in multitasking on the device, but the background instead of directing the user to an app store, thereby maintaining user experience with the foreground application, and do not recite an abstract idea. And although that process does result in improving user experience, the claims recite more than that mere result; they recite specific steps—invoking, without exiting the foreground software application, the installation client for downloading and installing applications on the device to run in the background—that accomplish the desired result. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding a method that employs a new kind of file in a computer security system directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security writ large). Petitioner thus fails to establish sufficiently that the claims are directed patent ineligible subject matter under Step 2A of the Guidance.” slip op. at 52
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“When the application package 172 has been received by the client system 130, the App Manager 180 may extract or retrieve a set of requested permissions 174 from the application package 172, and present a request to the user for asking for approval to perform operations corresponding to the requested permissions, e.g., opening files, accessing contact information, accessing a camera on the client device 130, and so on. . . . In particular embodiments, when the requested permissions 174 have been requested, and a response specifying a set of accepted permissions 176 has been received from the user, the set of accepted permissions 176 may be compared to the set of requested permissions 174. If the sets are the same, then the installation process may continue, and the App Manager 180 may invoke an installer 182 to install the application package 172. Ex. 1003, 8:67–9:22 (emphasis added). That is, the set of permissions to be checked are obtained by the App Manager once the download of the application package to be installed is initiated. See id. at 8:59–61 (“when the download is initiated by a request sent from the client system 130 to the server 162, the server 162 may send the requested object, e.g., the download page 168 or the application package 172, back to the client system 130”). And these permissions relate to operations that the installed applications may perform, e.g., opening files, accessing contact information, accessing a camera on the client device. Id. at 9:6–7. These permissions may also indirectly determine whether the installation client can install that app. See id. at 9:33–38. There is no suggestion in Pasha, however, that these permissions have anything to do with the host application, i.e., the second software application. said second software application is eligible to use capabilities of the installation client.” RMTA 25; see also Ex. 1001, 15:11–14 (“The installation client, upon receiving an instant install link, checks the eligibility of the caller and if identified as eligible continues the process of downloading the app.”). Pasha does not teach or suggest checking eligibility of its host application in any way or at any point. Moreover, as Patent Owner points out, Pasha’s App Manager performs the eligibility check after it downloads the app package, further supporting that Pasha’s eligibility check has nothing to do with the host application.9 Dr. Almeroth testifies that “Pasha discloses the App Manager 180 confirming that it has obtained the required permissions, which, in [his] opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand may include inter alia that the ‘second software application’ (e.g., the host application invoking the app manager) is eligible to use its capabilities.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 68. Dr. Almeroth fails to cite any supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Id. Because we find no basis in the record for Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion, we give little weight to this testimony.” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Almeroth testifies that “Pasha discloses the App Manager 180 confirming that it has obtained the required permissions, which, in [his] opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand may include inter alia that the ‘second software application’ (e.g., the host application invoking the app manager) is eligible to use its capabilities.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 68. Dr. Almeroth fails to cite any supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statement. Id. Because we find no basis in the record for Dr. Almeroth’s conclusion, we give little weight to this testimony. 9 During oral argument, Petitioner pointed us to disclosure in Pasha that teaches that the permission dialog may be displayed to the user at different points in the download process. Tr. 47:24–48:8 (citing Ex. 1003, 22:21–42). As Patent Owner pointed out, this disclosure was not relied up on by Petitioner in its papers and is new evidence. Id. at 51:19–22; Paper 46, 4. Petitioner’s argument based on this new evidence is therefore forfeited. But even if we were to consider the cited disclosure from Pasha, it still only suggests that permissions need to come from the server after the download process has been initiated, and are therefore, unrelated to the host application. See Ex. 1003, 22:46–49 (“the requested permissions may be downloaded prior to downloading the application or may be extracted from the application package”). 24, 2022) (precedential) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). As the Board explained in Xerox, such expert testimony “is particularly problematic in cases where, like here, expert testimony is offered not simply to provide a motivation to combine prior-art teachings, but rather to supply a limitation missing from the prior art.” Id. (citing Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 11,157,256 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Berkheimer · Enfish · PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,157,256 - Google LLC / The Walt Disney Company et al. v. Wag Acquisition, L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00813 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Hill and Aharoni; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds and dismissed the motion to exclude as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu LLC, and Netflix Inc. subsequently filed a similar petition along with a motion for joinder in IPR2023-00813. See IPR2023-00813, Papers 1, 6. We instituted an inter partes review and joined The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu LLC, and Netflix Inc. (“the joined parties”) as parties to this proceeding in a limited capacity. See IPR2023- 00813, Paper 11. Henceforth, we refer collectively to Google and the joined parties as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–23). Patent Owner “largely agrees with Petitioner’s formulation” but adds the following “clarification”: “the level of skill . . . specified would include some theoretical understanding as well as some familiarity with basic internet protocols and tools for working with dynamic content and creating interactive web sites to handle such content.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 13). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art without the qualifier “at least,” which introduces ambiguity. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’594 patent and the asserted prior art. We also note that our analysis would not change if we adopted Patent Owner’s “clarification,” which would have the effect of increasing the level of ordinary skill. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is generally easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill.”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“We decline to read in a requirement that the “program” of the preambles must be an “entire program.” In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the limitation directed to “additional requests . . . during playing” or the mention in the specification of “additional data requests for the duration of playing” necessarily requires that the “playing” refers to an entire program. For example, the recited requests could relate to playing a portion of a program, a premise with which both declarants agree. Ex. 1103, 22:22–24:9; Ex. 1111 ¶¶ 13–16. Thus, we reject Patent Owner’s “entire program” interpretation.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Via its citations to Aharoni and Dr. Polish’s testimony, Petitioner establishes that it was known in the art to send video data via TCP. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 129–130, 185– 187; Ex. 1008, 2:10–15, 6:35–40, 6:52–54, 7:32–35, 9:64–66. Despite the fact that other protocols were available and may have been preferred for certain operating conditions (see PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1004, 12:12–22; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 83–85)), Petitioner has established the known suitability of using TCP for transmitting video data, which is all that is necessary to prove obviousness. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 800. In addition, Petitioner persuasively shows that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement TCP (as taught by Aharoni) in Hill’s system to ensure reliable transport of video data, and would have expected success in doing so.10 See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 185–187. We disagree that Ravi and Aharoni teach away from using TCP. Ravi’s statement about UDP being easier to implement efficiently (Ex. 1004, 12:19–22) does not teach away because it does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the use of TCP. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Similarly, the fact that Aharoni’s system uses TCP for key frames while using UDP for other frames (Ex. 1008, 9:62–66, 10:5–21) is 10 We further discuss Petitioner’s rationale for combining Aharoni with Hill below in conjunction with the analysis of claims 4 and 5. See infra § II.D.6. Our comments in that section are also applicable to all of the claims in this ground. enough to show the suitability of TCP for video streaming under the Intel standard. Further, we credit Petitioner’s additional rationale about considering all frames as key frames in Hill’s system given its ability to skip frames. See, e.g., Ex. 1111 ¶¶ 92–94. Petitioner also establishes that, with TCP, video data is transmitted as fast as the data connection allows. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 130; Ex. 1019, 271– 72; Ex. 1042, 2. Mr. Hoarty agrees with this premise (see Ex. 1103, 75:13– 76:6), and Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 30 (arguing only that Petitioner had not established how fast data is received with TCP). Further, both parties’ declarants agree that a source sending video data via the Internet as fast as the data connection allows necessarily results in the media player receiving the video data as fast as the data connection allows. See, e.g., Ex. 1103, 76:5–6, 78:9–18; Ex. 1111 ¶¶ 68–69. We also agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 13 & n.6) that Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are illogical. Although Hill includes teachings on how to treat inadequate source bandwidth (Ex. 1006, 8:20–10:24), this does not mean that—nonsensically—a source would transmit data into the data connection slower than the bandwidth and protocol allows. See, e.g., Ex. 1111 ¶ 78. Thus, we are persuaded that the combination of Hill and Aharoni would result in a TCP connection where video data is received as fast as the connection would allow.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 9,729,594 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,729,594 - Google LLC / The Walt Disney Company et al. v. Wag Acquisition, L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 27, 2024 · IPR2022-01411 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Hill and Aharoni; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu LLC, and Netflix Inc. subsequently filed a similar petition along with a motion for joinder in IPR2023-00813. See IPR2023-00813, Papers 1, 6. We instituted an inter partes review and joined The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu LLC, and Netflix Inc. (“the joined parties”) as parties to this proceeding in a limited capacity. See IPR2023- 00813, Paper 11. Henceforth, we refer collectively to Google and the joined parties as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–23). Patent Owner “largely agrees with Petitioner’s formulation” but adds the following “clarification”: “the level of skill . . . specified would include some theoretical understanding as well as some familiarity with basic internet protocols and tools for working with dynamic content and creating interactive web sites to handle such content.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 13). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art without the qualifier “at least,” which introduces ambiguity. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’594 patent and the asserted prior art. We also note that our analysis would not change if we adopted Patent Owner’s “clarification,” which would have the effect of increasing the level of ordinary skill. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is generally easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill.”).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We decline to construe limitations 1b(i)–1b(ii) other than to agree with both parties (PO Resp. 11, 28–29; Pet. Reply 5) that the recited “data rate” refers to the capability of the data connection. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:40–43 (“The bandwidth requirement of audio or video media refers to the data rate in bits per second that must be transmitted and received in order to listen to or view the material uninterrupted.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 126; Ex. 1103, 26:19–29:7; Ex. 1111 ¶ 24. This is sufficient to dispose of the instant case. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Via its citations to Aharoni and Dr. Polish’s testimony, Petitioner establishes that it was known in the art to send video data via TCP. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 129–130, 185– 187; Ex. 1008, 2:10–15, 6:35–40, 6:52–54, 7:32–35, 9:64–66. Despite the fact that other protocols were available and may have been preferred for certain operating conditions (see PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1004, 12:12–22; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 83–85)), Petitioner has established the known suitability of using TCP for transmitting video data, which is all that is necessary to prove obviousness. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 800. In addition, Petitioner persuasively shows that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement TCP (as taught by Aharoni) in Hill’s system to ensure reliable transport of video data, and would have expected success in doing so.10 See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 185–187. We disagree that Ravi and Aharoni teach away from using TCP. Ravi’s statement about UDP being easier to implement efficiently (Ex. 1004, 12:19–22) does not teach away because it does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the use of TCP. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Similarly, the fact that Aharoni’s system uses TCP for key frames while using UDP for other frames (Ex. 1008, 9:62–66, 10:5–21) is 10 We further discuss Petitioner’s rationale for combining Aharoni with Hill below in conjunction with the analysis of claims 4 and 5. See infra § II.D.6. Our comments in that section are also applicable to all of the claims in this ground. enough to show the suitability of TCP for video streaming under the Intel standard. Further, we credit Petitioner’s additional rationale about considering all frames as key frames in Hill’s system given its ability to skip frames. See, e.g., Ex. 1111 ¶¶ 92–94. Petitioner also establishes that, with TCP, video data is transmitted as fast as the data connection allows. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 130; Ex. 1019, 271– 72; Ex. 1042, 2. Mr. Hoarty agrees with this premise (see Ex. 1103, 75:13– 76:6), and Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp. 30 (arguing only that Petitioner had not established how fast data is received with TCP). Further, both parties’ declarants agree that a source sending video data via the Internet as fast as the data connection allows necessarily results in the media player receiving the video data as fast as the data connection allows. See, e.g., Ex. 1103, 76:5–6, 78:9–18; Ex. 1111 ¶¶ 68–69. We also agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 13 & n.6) that Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are illogical. Although Hill includes teachings on how to treat inadequate source bandwidth (Ex. 1006, 8:20–10:24), this does not mean that—nonsensically—a source would transmit data into the data connection slower than the bandwidth and protocol allows. See, e.g., Ex. 1111 ¶ 78. Thus, we are persuaded that the combination of Hill and Aharoni would result in a TCP connection where video data is received as fast as the connection would allow.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 9,729,594 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,729,594 - Ebay, Inc. v. Lexos Media IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00336 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claim 72 under all three asserted obviousness grounds and granted eBay’s motion to join IPR2023-01000.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be authorized unless the information in the Petition and any preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’102 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented. We also grant Petitioner’s Motion.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Owner argues that Nielsen relies on the HTML protocol and modifications would require changes to the HTML protocol to provide tooltips that appear as part of a cursor, but that Petitioner did not adequately address the real possibility of such a change. PO Prelim. Resp. 22–24. Patent Owner additionally argues that there would not have been a motivation to make changes to Nielsen, because, in Nielsen, the tooltip is not “indiscriminately and automatically displayed in response to cursor movement” but rather is displayed only after cessation of movement over a part of the display with an associated tooltip. Id. at 24 (emphasis removed). These arguments are similar to those made in the preliminary response in the 01000 IPR. See 01000 IPR, Paper 8, 57–59. In the institution decision in the 01000 IPR, we did not determine whether a likelihood of success had been shown for the Nielsen and Malamud ground, but provided initial views for the benefit of the parties, which are applicable in this proceeding as well. 01000 IPR, Paper 10, 33–35. As discussed above, we have made the decision to institute on other grounds, and we note that our institution is necessarily on all grounds in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting ... review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that Petitioner is time-barred from seeking inter partes review of the ’102 patent and is “improperly using the joinder procedure in an attempt to circumvent” the one-year time bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Opp. 1, 7–8. However, Patent Owner does not persuasively explain, and we do not discern, how filing a petition with a request for joinder properly under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) is an improper use of the joinder procedure to circumvent the one-year time bar. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (providing that joinder must be filed no later than one month after the institution date of the inter partes review for which joinder is requested and that the one-year time bar (§ 42.101(b)) “shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.”)” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant,” who is the Petitioner in this proceeding. Id. Petitioner timely filed its Motion for Joinder on December 20, 2023 (i.e., within one month after the institution of the 01000 IPR on December 12, 2023). See Mot.; 01000 IPR, Paper 9; 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In deciding whether to join a case, we consider (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate, (2) whether the petition raises any new grounds of unpatentability, (3) any impact that joinder would have on the cost and trial schedule for the existing review, and (4) whether joinder will add to the complexity of briefing or discovery. Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15,4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 76 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/tpgnov.pdf. The Petition (1) is substantially identical to the 01000 IPR petition, (2) contains the same grounds based on the same evidence, and (3) relies on the same declaration of Dr. Craig Rosenberg. (Ex. 1003). Mot. 1, 6–9 & n.1. Petitioner represents that joinder will not impact the 01000 IPR schedule. Id. at 4; Reply 5. Petitioner also represents that it “will accept an “understudy” role unless and until [the 01000 petitioner] is terminated from the proceeding.” Mot. 4, 9–10. Petitioner represents that in its understudy role, it agrees that the following conditions will apply: (a) all filings by Petitioner in the joined proceeding be consolidated with the filings of the petitioner in the 01000 IPR, unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve the petitioner in the 01000 IPR; (b) Petitioner shall not be permitted” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 5,995,102 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–6 on all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Szrek and did not reach the Llach–Szrek ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than at issue in IPR2020-00084. Second, although the parties may have gained insight as to how the Board would handle challenges based on the same references asserted in the earlier proceeding, that insight (to the extent it gives an advantage) applies to both parties. Third, the first proceeding was a post-grant review that had a specific timing requirement (see 35 U.S.C. § 321(c)), in contrast to the present proceeding in which the filing of the Petition did not have the same or similar time constraint.6 In these circumstances, we find it appropriate to give less weight to factors based on the mere passage of time such as whether Petitioner knew of the prior art at the time of filing the petition in PGR2020- 00084 (clearly Petitioner did because two of the same references are asserted here) and whether Petitioner had received Patent Owner’s preliminary response from PGR2020-00084 at the time of filing the instant Petition. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we do not dive headfirst into these matters that are better addressed by the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).7 Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that we should follow the Board’s decision in PGR2020-00084 and construe “transaction processor” and “data package” in accordance with each term’s plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; see id. at 13–19. Patent Owner does not take a position as to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. In PGR2020-00084, the Board construed “transaction processor”8 in accordance with its plain meaning as “a processor . . . that processes transactions between two devices” and specifically “decline[d] to limit processors . . . to ‘third party’ processors . . . because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty.” Ex. 1008, 22. And, as Petitioner indicates, the Board determined that “data package” also is understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 22–24; see id. at 24 n.10. At this stage of the proceeding 8 In that proceeding, the Board also construed “transaction processor system.” Ex. 1008, 13–22. and on the present record, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,865,135
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.