- DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00717 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 27 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hite or obvious over Hite; claims 16–18 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“preponderance of the evidence that the specified claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We previously instructed Patent Owner that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 10, 6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”).5 Additionally, the Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should identify all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that belief.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There are arguments and evidence advanced by Petitioner to support its positions, though, that Patent Owner chose not to address in either its Preliminary Response (Paper 7) or Response (Paper 22), or that was not addressed in the Decision on Institution (Paper 9). We have evaluated those unrebutted arguments and the evidence in support, and we find the Petitioner persuasively established, with sufficient evidence, the manner in which the asserted prior art teaches corresponding elements of the claims. Pet. 18–66 (citing Exs. 1008–1010) (unchallenged portions only). Based on the preponderance of the evidence before us, we conclude that the prior art identified by Petitioner describes all limitations of the reviewed claims that were not contested by the Patent Owner in either its Preliminary Response 5 For the reasons noted in our Order (Paper 43, 2–3), however, for this proceeding, we will also consider the arguments set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. (Paper 7) or Response (Paper 22). In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 974 (2016). We address only the contested limitations below.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
“correspond properly to the claimed storage device, because it is not capable of recording programming content selected by a user for later playback. PO Resp. 14. We are not persuaded by this argument because, as discussed above, we are persuaded that a proper construction of “storage device” does not require recording programming content for later playback. We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Hite’s OVS Device 456 corresponds properly to the “at least one storage device,” as recited in each of independent claims 1 and 19.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain sufficiently, and the cited portions of Hite do not disclose, how the method by which the progression is made from “children’s aspirin” to “children’s chewable vitamins.” Dr. Negus’s testimony is similarly unavailing, as the only cited paragraph that plausibly supports their position, paragraph 484, is conclusory and unsupported. Absent such explanation or cited disclosure, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has shown adequately that the recited “key word” is a part of the progression, as required to meet the claim. 8 At least a portion of Dr. Negus’s testimony aligns with this testimony of Dr. Kesan. Ex. 1008 ¶ 669 (“An exemplary targeting characteristic to optimize advertising format scenarios within Hite is the ‘context code’ that ‘could be appended to the commercial’s CID code’ to be ‘compared with program identification codes appended to the program signals’ such that a ‘commercial is displayed if it is in a specific channel or network or show’ as in the example of ‘skiing equipment commercials would be shown during a skiing down hill racing competition’ (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1009 at 4:34–40).”. Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 4 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“Essentially, Patent Owner assertions are the same as those advanced for the anticipation ground for the same claim. We agree with Patent Owner’s assertions for the same reasons as set forth above. Having said that, the assertions are misplaced, because this is an obviousness ground, and Patent Owner does not address the modification to Hite proposed by the Examiner. To that end, we are persuaded by Petitioner that it would have been obvious to code Hite’s viewer responses using keywords, as we agree that such a technique was common and well known at the time of the invention, and that it would have been an obvious design choice. Ex. 1008 ¶ 486. Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges this possibility, as they do not assert that using key words would not have been known, just that it may not have been preferable under certain circumstances. PO Resp. 53 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 92). Insofar as Patent Owner may be asserting that such a preference teaches away from a modification, we have considered it, but determine that it is outweighed by the evidence of the ubiquity of key word searches at the time of the invention. Indeed, we are unclear as to how, other than using numbers or key words, such searches could have been performed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”).” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,053,494 - Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01831 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for claims 1, 3, 14, and 15 because Nevro did not sufficiently show Schulman rendered the no-stimulation voltage-measurement limitation obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters that the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsNot shown unpatentable
“Schulman simply discloses that (a) when no stimulation is provided a request is made for a battery recharge and (b) when a battery recharge occurs, battery voltage is measured. Based on that alone, it is unclear when, or even if, the requested recharge will, in fact, ever occur, or whether it will occur when there is no stimulation provided. Arguably, a battery recharge normally follows a battery recharge request. But there is insufficient evidence that a battery recharge request, when there is no stimulation due to low voltage, necessarily leads to the battery being recharged, let alone recharged when there is no stimulation due to low voltage. As we stated in the Decision, “[i]ndeed, we find that the fact that microstimulator 100 has ceased operation when it emits a status signal (due to the low voltage condition) suggests the opposite; that is, the battery is not being recharged and is not performing any operation aside from emitting a status signal, which would include measuring the voltage of the rechargeable battery.” Dec. 15– 16. Accordingly, even Petitioner’s current position lacks sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s contention that Schulman renders obvious the claimed subject matter whereby “voltage is measured when no stimulation is being provided by the electronic subassembly.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The Petition went no further. No explanation was given as to how one of ordinary skill in the art, given that Schulman discloses (a) requesting battery recharge via emitted periodic signals when no stimulation is provided due to low battery and (b) monitoring (and measuring) voltage during recharge, would have been led to measure voltage “when no stimulation is being provided by the electronic subassembly,” as claimed. The Petition did not explain, for example, as Petitioner now contends, that “[a]t some point, [Schulman’s] recharge request will be honored. And when recharging commences from that low voltage, zero stimulation condition, Schulman will begin measuring voltage where there is still no stimulation.” Req. 3. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked this explanation, as it was not given.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,437,193 - Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2018 · IPR2016-01876 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–12 and 20–26 were not proven unpatentable over Hattan and JP-Shimano because the weak motivation to combine was outweighed by objective evidence of non-obviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther
“benefit of improved durability, see Pet. 63, neither the Petition nor JP- Shimano ever tie improved durability to improved chain retention, and the Petition never contends that durability was the rationale to modify Hattan in view of JP-Shimano. See Pet. 62–66. Dr. Neptune admitted that these arguments were not contained in his original declaration. Ex. 2129, 96:16– 97:5. A reply is not the place to raise an almost entirely new motivation to combine. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). While we will consider this argument, nevertheless, we find that Dr. Neptune’s shifting basis for the rationale to combine the references suggests that his reasoning is motivated heavily by hindsight, and not by what a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have understood. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding it is improper to combine references “like separate pieces of a simple jigsaw puzzle” without “explain[ing] what reason or motivation one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had to place these pieces together”). Accordingly, we give little weight to Dr. Neptune’s testimony on rationale to combine. Patent Owner also argues that there is no rationale to combine,” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the effective filing date of the ’027 patent, “would have a skill level of at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and/or at least three to five years’ experience in the development and design of chain drive systems and components thereof.” Pet. 1 n.1 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 14). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of design experience with chainrings or related technologies. PO Resp. 12 n.3 (citing Ex. 2074 ¶ 25). Any difference between these two definitions is insignificant to this analysis. On this record, however, we find Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art to be more persuasive given the well-developed, relatively simple nature of the art, and apply it for our analysis.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“on an assumption that the chain retention techniques of Hattan and JP- Shimano are additive, and would “improve chain retention to the maximum extent possible.” Pet. 63, see also Tr. 8:6–9; Ex. 2074 ¶ 50. The Petition and Dr. Neptune’s opening declaration, however, contain no explanation to support or explain this underlying assumption. Ex. 2074 ¶ 50. This gap in Petitioner’s reasoning is problematic, at least in part, because, as Dr. Sturges explains, Hattan discloses that its device prevents the chain from jumping off the forward oblong sprocket under “any operating conditions,” Ex. 1004, 1:63–66, and that it will “compensate for any out of line condition” of the chain line and will “prevent the chain from ever jumping off of the sprocket wheel,” id. at 2:26–27, 2:34–35. Ex. 2074 ¶ 46. In view of Hattan’s disclosure, Dr. Sturges testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that JP-Shimano would not have improved chain retention and engagement in Hattan, because both are directed to solving the same kind of problems that result in chain drop. Ex. 2074 ¶¶ 45–47. For example, Dr. Sturges testifies that Hattan specifically states that its solution prevents chain line displacement chain drops. Id. ¶ 47. Dr. Sturges also testifies that JP-Shimano seeks to address chain drop resulting from chain line displacement. Id. ¶ 45.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner
“Having reviewed Patent Owner’s evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that it has shown that it is entitled to a presumption of a nexus between the evidence secondary considerations tied to the X-Sync chainring and the invention recited in the challenged claims. In particular, we find that 5 Petitioner contends that there are “possibly” other patents that cover Patent Owner’s commercial product (Pet. Reply 22), but does not identify them. Petitioner’s allegations of other patents are too insubstantial to be entitled to any weight. Patent Owner has shown that the various X-Sync chainrings are covered by the challenged claims and are coextensive with them. See Ex. 2074 ¶¶ 63, 64 (testimony of Dr. Sturges that the products practice the claims); Ex. 2078–2089 (claim charts); Ex. 2076 ¶ 11 (explaining the families of products Patent Owner sells); Ex. 2073 ¶ 10 (explaining the families of products Patent Owner sells). Here, the claims are directed to chainrings, as well as cranksets and drivetrains that include chainrings. Thus, there is a presumption of a nexus between the evidence of secondary considerations tied to the X-Sync chainring, as well as to cranksets and drive trains that include the X-Sync chainring, and the challenged claims that recite these bicycle components. See Polaris Indus., 882 F.3d at 1073 (“[The challenged claims] broadly cover the entire vehicle, rather than ‘only a component of a commercially successful machine.’ . . . Moreover, the Board did not point to any limitation it found missing in the RZR vehicles. On these undisputed facts, we hold that the Board erred in failing to find that Polaris’s eight RZR vehicles are the inventions disclosed in [the claims].” (citation omitted)). Petitioner tries to rebut this presumption of a nexus by attempting to shift the burden of proof to Patent Owner to prove that the objective indicia is tied to certain claimed features rather than unclaimed features present in the commercial embodiments. Pet. Reply 26–27. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument improperly attempts to shift the burden to Patent Owner. Sur-Reply 8–9. Here, because Patent Owner has shown that it is entitled to a presumption of a nexus between the X-Sync chainring and the challenged claims, the burden is on Petitioner to rebut that nexus. Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392. With respect to the improved chain retention of the X-Sync chainring, Petitioner argues that there are numerous unclaimed features, many of which are touted in advertising materials, but Petitioner asserts that none of the claimed features are touted. Pet. Reply 32–33. Petitioner argues that “[i]n light of the unclaimed features touted by [Patent Owner] and the press, and in the absence of any touting/recognition for the claimed combination,” Patent Owner cannot establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the objective indicia. Id. at 33 (citing Ethicon Endo Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 812 F.3d 1023, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Although Petitioner points to some evidence touting other features, see id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1055), 42 (citing Exs. 2005, 2008, 2027), we find that this evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption of a nexus that Patent Owner has established. Moreover, much of the evidence is clearly broader than Petitioner acknowledges. In addition to pointing out unclaimed features, there is also praise pointing generally to the “unique tooth profile,” Ex. 2006, “tooth profile,” Ex. 2008, Patent Owner’s “adaptation of the narrow-wide chainring tooth profile,” Ex. 2019, and the “cleverly profiled chainring,” Ex. 2023.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,182,027 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,182,027 - Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2018 · IPR2017-00118 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–12 and 20–26 were not proven unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the objective evidence of non-obviousness outweighed the case for obviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the effective filing date of the ’027 patent, “would have a skill level of at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and/or at least three to five years’ experience in the development and design of chain drive systems and components thereof.” Pet. 1 n.1 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶ 16). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of design experience with chainrings or related technologies. PO Resp. 12 n.3 (citing Ex. 2074 ¶ 25). Any difference between these two definitions is insignificant to this analysis. On this record, however, we find Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art to be more persuasive given the well-developed, relatively simple nature of the art, and apply it for our analysis.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has shown a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of the references. Petitioner has offered evidence that Thompson would have been improved by adding the wide-narrow teeth of JP-Shimano in certain situations when the chain approaches the chairing from the rear gears at an angle. Ex. 1050 ¶¶ 12–14; Ex. 1006, 15:73–75. We find this evidence persuasive and give it significant weight. We do note that we also give some weight to Patent Owner’s evidence that Thompson and JP- Shimano do largely overlap in their solutions, and that the benefits of the combination would be limited. Ex. 2074 ¶¶ 45–50. We find that even though Patent Owner’s arguments do not amount to a teaching away, they do slightly weaken the factual basis of Petitioner’s combination. See Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“But even if a reference is not found to teach away, its statements regarding preferences are relevant to a finding regarding whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine that reference with another reference.”).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“Unclaimed features do not prevent the presumption of a nexus, but they may be the basis for rebutting the presumption. Id. To do so, a person challenging patent validity must show that the commercial success, or other objective evidence of non-obviousness, was due to “extraneous factors” including “additional unclaimed features.” Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Merely pointing out unclaimed features in the X-Sync chainring is not enough. Id. (“However, a patent challenger cannot successfully rebut the presumption with argument alone— it must present evidence.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner
“We have reviewed Patent Owner’s evidence of sales and market share, and find that it demonstrates substantial commercial success within the single chainring market. Ex. 2076 ¶¶ 16–29. In particular, we find the large growth in market share and sales volume, and resulting large market share in the single chainring market, to be indicative of commercial success. Id. ¶¶ 20–29. We find this evidence compelling and entitled to substantial weight. We do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s growth in the single-chainring market was primarily due to cannibalization of its multi-chainring market share, and that Patent Owner’s lack of achieved growth in the overall chainring market (single- and multi-) indicates that there was no commercial success. As Patent Owner notes, cannibalization does not preclude commercial success. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp., 789 F.2d 903, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Patent Owner presented evidence that it has achieved this large market share, in the single-chainring market, while charging between two and eight times the prices of its competitors in the single chainring market. Ex. 2076 ¶ 13 (stating that Patent Owner’s X-Sync chainrings are sold for more than $90, which is at least twice as expensive as the Race Face chainrings, and in some cases eight times more expensive). Patent Owner also noted that this large market share does not include the sales of its competitors who are licensees. Id. ¶¶ 26–29; see also Tr. 16:12–15 (agreeing that Patent Owner’s drivetrain as a whole was a commercial success). Thus, we find that Patent Owner has presented substantial evidence of commercial success. As we noted above, Petitioner points to evidence that the sales information presented is primarily directed to sales of X-Sync chainrings as parts of cranksets and drivetrain groupsets. See Pet. Reply 21–24. We found above that, for data related to cranksets and groupsets, Patent Owner has only established a nexus for claims 11, 12, 25, and 26. Thus, we find that a strong demonstration of a nexus that exists between claims 11, 12, 25, and 26 and this commercial success information. Accordingly, we find that commercial success weighs significantly in favor of non-obviousness of claims 11, 12, 25, and 26.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 9,182,027 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,182,027 - Twilio Inc. v. Telesign CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2018 · IPR2016-01688 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Bennett and Campbell under § 103(a).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’792 patent would have had “at least an undergraduate degree in computer science, or equivalent experience, and in addition would be familiar with Internet and telephone communications.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–20). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response. Based on the record developed during trial, including our review of the ’792 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’792 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“As shown in the chart above, the ’792 patent claims priority as a continuation or divisional application of a series of applications, and as a continuation-in-part (CIP) of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/034,421 (Ex. 1027, “the ’421 application”), filed on January 11, 2005. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7–25. Petitioner argues that there is no presumption that the challenged claims are entitled to the filing date of the ’421 application, because the Office did not consider priority during prosecution of the ’792 patent, and the ’421 application does not provide written description support for certain limitations pertaining to the recited “notification event” in independent claims 1 and 10 of the ’792 patent. Pet. 9–15. In our Decision on Institution, we agreed with Petitioner, based on the record at the time, that the challenged claims are not entitled to the filing date of the ’421 application, and the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims is October 5, 2006. Dec. on Inst. 10–12. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the effective filing date of the challenged claims in its Response, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from our earlier conclusion. Thus, we adopt the previous analysis, and conclude that Bennett is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and Campbell is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[ ].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily interpreted the claim term “notification event” to mean an event that results in the user being notified that the event occurred. Dec. on Inst. 6–10. The parties apply this interpretation in their Response and Reply, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from our earlier interpretation. See Resp. 14–15; Reply 11. We adopt the previous analysis and conclude that no other terms require interpretation.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s position, in effect, would require that a single prior art reference have to disclose the full concept of a “notification event” “associated with” an “action” requiring user acknowledgement. See, e.g., PO Resp. 18–19 (arguing that “[t]he Petition would need to rely on Campbell to teach the notification-event limitations . . . because Bennett does not, . . . but Petitioner fails to adequately argue or show that Campbell teaches such actions”); Tr. 18:7–19:9 (acknowledging that there need not be one reference disclosing the entire limitation, but arguing that “one cannot untether the action from the notification event”). The test for obviousness, however, is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that in an obviousness analysis, “the prior art must be considered as a whole for what it teaches”); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Petitioner explains sufficiently what the combined teachings of Bennett and Campbell would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, namely, “events” in Bennett that trigger an SMS message to the user and that have associated “actions,” and adding a sentence to the SMS message in Bennett to provide notification to the user that the event occurred. See Pet. 37–59; Reply 16 (“Bennett discloses different types of ‘actions’ and Campbell discloses ‘notification events.’ . . . Thus, it is the combination of Bennett and Campbell that discloses ‘notification events associated with actions.’”). Thus, we are persuaded that, collectively, Bennett and Campbell account for a “notification event” “associated with” an “action” requiring user acknowledgement, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,300,792 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,300,792 - Oracle America Inc. / Oracle Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2018 · IPR2016-01434 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 14 was not shown unpatentable because the cited personal notes were not “content contributed.”
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“While the parties use slightly different language, we are unable to discern any substantive differences between the proffered levels of skill and basic qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Dr. Papakonstantinou’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason then for its conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“above-identified single statement in the specification, which uses permissible language such as “can be” and “does not need to be,” is sufficient to justify Patent Owner’s assertions, which for all practical purposes, is a disavowal of claim scope. See Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent a clear disavowal in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language.”) We also credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth over that of Dr. Papakonstantinou, because, among other reasons, Dr. Almeroth supports his testimony with relevant citations to the specification, while Dr. Papakonstantinou largely repeats that which is set forth in the Patent Owner Response, without further analysis. graphical fields that allow the input of administrative information without programming” are advantageous over “cumbersome programming performed in the past.” Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 44, 47. We treat this argument as subsumed within Patent Owner’s argument that the specification disparages prior art systems that require HTML programming to perform administrative tasks.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“224, 232 encompasses a “link to content.” In application, however, “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is actually two separate components: (1) the underlying technical set of computer instructions that, upon clicking the link associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232, transports a user to a web page associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232; and (2) the words “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 itself displayed on the computer display, but separate from the technical set of computer instructions set forth in (1). In this example, (1) is “link to content, but not itself ‘content,’” however, (2) is itself “content.” More precisely, when we now consider “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 in relation to the aforementioned construction of “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” it becomes clear that “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is both “links to content” and “content.” Specifically, component (1) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 232 is “links to content,” but not “content” itself, because the underlying technical set of computer instructions is not “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” but for a computer. By contrast, component (2) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 is “content,” as it is clearly “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” in that the words “what is a wireless LAN?” are intended to convey information to an individual. So, as a practical matter, we discern that every disclosure of a “link to content” that includes “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals” (i.e., any information associated with a “link” that is separate from a generic indication of the “link” itself), is “content.” See also Ex. 3001, 6–16 (providing further analysis concerning construction, which we expressly incorporate herein). Accordingly, we determine that a proper construction of “content” is “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. We are persuaded that “administrative interface” is broader than the “administrative page” mentioned in the specification, in that an “administrative interface” may encompass 9 While discussing “graphical user interface” during oral argument, Patent Owner stated that it was not disclaiming claim scope. Tr. 47:20–22 (“We’re not arguing that the claim terms have been disclaimed in some phrase.”). something other than an “administrative page.” We are also persuaded that the specification’s disclosure of a non-limiting embodiment, that of a highlyautomated and browser-based “administrative page,” does not require that a proper construction of “administrative interface” include “graphical user interface.” As admitted by Patent Owner, these pages are “example[s]” only, and, at best, merely “impl[y]” the presence of a “graphical user interface.” See PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002, 16:39–44; Ex. 2002 ¶ 40). We are persuaded that an “implied example” does not belong in a proper construction of a claim term. Indeed, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s factual premise, concerning the above “implied example,” is flawed, as the specification’s “reference to automation and a browser provides no basis for restricting the claimed ‘administrative interface’ to a graphical user interface.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 15) (Dr. Almeroth testifies that “automation of computer systems does not require a graphical user interface.”). More specifically, Dr. Almeroth identifies other automated “interfaces” in the specification, such as “a networked cash register, bar code scanner or electronic product code reader” (Ex. 1002, 13:8–15, 14:51–52) that do not require a “graphical user interface.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. We agree with Dr. Almeroth’s analysis of the specification. Dr. Almeroth asserts further, and we agree, again, that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would understand that that cash register could be connected to a server that is accessible only via a command line interface, and that administrators could use command-line tools . . . to group content on that server.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. Patent Owner cites In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149–1150 (Fed. Cir. 2012) for its finding of an implicit definition of a” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,516,177 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2017 · IPR2016-00502 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Valeo’s rehearing request, leaving its final written decision that claims 1–13 were unpatentable on grounds other than the Nester obviousness grounds unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“such as the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement, an express motivation to combine references may not be necessary under the Court’s flexible analysis. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 417. Valeo fails, however, to characterize its obviousness position as falling under these cases, nor do we read Valeo’s position as advocating a simple substitution or applying a known technique to a reference ready for improvement. See Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–123. Instead, Valeo advocates substituting in Nester’s over-tuned pendulum absorber for Sudau’s even-tuned compensation flywheel, without explaining how such a substitution would be “simple.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 120. Although Nester’s pendulum absorber may represent a “known technique,” Valeo fails to adequately explain why Sudau’s torque converter is so apparently “ready for improvement” that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need no further motivation to make the substitution.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“unavailing. As an initial point, Valeo fails to identify where it relied on Dr. Shaw’s deposition testimony specifically quoted at page 6 of the Request in a motion, opposition, or reply, and we cannot discern independently where Valeo relied on this testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We cannot overlook facts that were not presented to us. Further, we find that Dr. Shaw’s testimony that Nester’s over-tuning addresses multiple effects is from the perspective of a co-author—Dr. Shaw is not testifying about what the actual reference discloses, but instead what the over-tuning may address based on his knowledge of the underlying testing. See Ex. 2013, 292:11– 297:24 (containing deposition testimony about the underlying testing and results, not specific disclosures in Nester). Our analysis in the Final Written Decision weighed already that evidence of record and found that Nestor’s over-tuning addressed non-linear effects only, and we are unpersuaded that the above-identified testimony affects dispositively the outcome of that weighing.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,161,740 - PTAB · Aug 24, 2017 · IPR2017-00936 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over Ginter or Ginter and Stefik.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the associated evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same CPU 654 of Ginter. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. We agree. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U. S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to CPU 654 of Ginter is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that Ginter discloses “one or more conventional general purpose central processing units (‘CPUs’) 654 . . . .” Ex. 1002, 185:21–22 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is plausible that Petitioner intended for one of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “processing circuitry” and another of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “microprocessor.” We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that intention with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same CPU 654 of Ginter. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. We agree. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U. S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to CPU 654 of Ginter is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that Ginter discloses “one or more conventional general purpose central processing units (‘CPUs’) 654 . . . .” Ex. 1002, 185:21–22 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is plausible that Petitioner intended for one of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “processing circuitry” and another of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “microprocessor.” We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that intention with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner impermissibly maps two distinct claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same processing means 1200 of Stefik. Prelim. Resp. 29–31. We agree. See Unique Concepts, 939 F.2d at 1563 (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Texas Instr., 988 F.2d at 1171 (explaining that claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to processing means 1200 of Stefik is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that it is plausible that Petitioner is mapping “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” to processing means 1200 and processor element 1201, respectively, where processor element 1201 is a component of processing means 1200. We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that mapping with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). Moreover, as each of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” are recited as performing functions, if anything, it would appear that both “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” should be mapped to processor element 1201, which would still be deficient for the reasons set forth above concerning processing means 1200. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner maps the ASIC chip of processing means 1200, which appears to be the same as processor element 1201, of Stefik to the recited “microprocessor,” but that an ASIC chip cannot correspond properly to a “microprocessor.” Prelim. Resp. 31. We agree. Patent Owner cites to a webpage that defines ASIC as follows: (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) Pronounced “a-sick.” A chip that is custom designed for a specific application rather than a general-purpose chip such as a microprocessor. The use of ASICs improve performance over general-purpose CPUs, because ASICs are “hardwired” to do a specific job and do not incur the overhead of fetching and interpreting stored instructions. Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2002); see also Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/microprocessor (accessed: June 12, 2017) (Ex. 3001) (microprocessor is “an integrated computer circuit that performs all the functions of a CPU”). Based on the above, we find that an ASIC is not a microprocessor. Against this objective evidence, Petitioner only states that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would know that an ASIC chip is a microprocessor” (Pet. 35), and provides a citation to paragraph 223 of Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration, the relevant portion of which merely states, similarly, that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an ASIC chip functions would include those of a microprocessor,” without further relevant explanation or analysis. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one of claims 1, 9, 10, and 13–16 is unpatentable as obvious over Ginter and Stefik.” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,840,437 - Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00675 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, 13, 14, 19–22, and 32 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish the claimed remote database.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that Petitioner’s evidence and argument are insufficient to demonstrate that Mahajan teaches a “remote database.” As an initial matter, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Mahajan’s teaching of storing information informs a skilled artisan that that storage is a “database,” as required by claim 1. See Pet. 27; Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner also does not adequately explain why a storage medium, such as a hard drive or a server, sufficiently equates with a “database.” Id. Indeed, in response to the question—“[s]o Mahajan’s disclosure of a remote server is not the same thing as disclosing a remote database, correct?”—Dr. Nesbitt testified, “[n]ot exclusively.” Ex. 2011, 123:8–12; see id. at 120:19–21. Dr. Nesbitt further testified that, [a] server would be more of a hardware device, where a database would be more of a software. It would be a place where the data is actually stored within a remote computer or remote server. So it’s the hardware versus what’s in the hardware is the distinction” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Although we acknowledge that Mahajan discloses that its system can be used in conjunction with database systems generally, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have modified Mahajan to include a “remote database.” See Pet. 27; Pet. Reply 14–15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 165 (emphasis added). Similarly, Petitioner also does not explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have modified the disclosed remote “server” of Mahajan to include a “database.” See id.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 8,941,723 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,941,723 - Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00676 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–9, and 12–15 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 5 and 6 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed database limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“to the ’855 patent is “a person with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field with two to three years of experience working with data acquisition systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). According to Petitioner, “[w]ith more education, such as additional graduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed to attain the ordinary level of skill.” Id.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“The Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]hroughout this Court’s engagement with the question of obviousness, our cases have set forth an expansive and flexible approach inconsistent with the way the Court of Appeals applied its TSM test here.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. In direct contrast, Patent Owner’s assertions of law, by use of the terms “unnecessary” and “unneeded,” harkens back to the rigid TSM test, which the Supreme Court held explicitly as being incorrect. The Supreme Court further opined as follows: Neither the enactment of § 103 nor the analysis in [Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)] disturbed this Court’s earlier instructions concerning the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art. For over a half century, the Court has held that a “patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions . . . obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.” Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Id. at 415–416. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions of law, there is no use of terms similar to “unnecessary,” “unneeded,” or even “goals” in the obviousness analysis. Instead, the Supreme Court’s inquiry is straightforward: (1) if the elements are found in the prior art, and (2) if the combination results in “no change in respective function” and “does no more than yield predictable results,” i.e., a predictable reason to combine for a predictable advantage, then the resulting combination is “likely to be obvious.” Id.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts further that “Mahajan teaches such a person of skill in the art not to include a memory, as its real-time data transmission system is described as preferable to a memory-based system such as Lee’s.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis omitted). We disagree. While Mahajan does disclose such a general preference in one embodiment, we find that it, at the same time, expressly acknowledges the possibility of the alternative. Ex. 1005 ¶ 42 (“The hardware device need not have an on-board memory for storing the orientation and position information.”). See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (non-preferred embodiments can be the basis for an obviousness analysis). Specifically, we find that the words “need not” actually conveys the following meaning in the context of the Mahajan: “may, but need not.” This understanding is further underscored by the fact that Mahajan expressly incorporates-by-reference Lee, and, in describing Lee, asserts the following: “A distinctive feature of this instrumented golf club is the use of a data storage memory device located within the golf club that eliminates the need for radio transmission hardware.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Indeed, not only does Mahajan acknowledge that an alternative of adding memory was known, it even identifies an advantage for that alternative. The argument that such an advantage may be allegedly contrary to the goals of Mahajan is unpersuasive, for the reasons set forth above. Finally, insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Mahajan teaches away from the proffered modification, we disagree for the same reasons. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (a reference that “merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into” the claimed invention does not teach away).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We determine that Petitioner’s evidence and argument is insufficient to demonstrate that Mahajan teaches the limitation of claim 5. As an initial matter, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Mahajan’s teaching of storing information informs a skilled artisan that that storage is a “database,” as required by claim 5. See Pet. 32–33; Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner does not adequately explain why a storage medium, such a hard drive or a server, sufficiently equates with a “database.” Indeed, in response to the question— “[s]o Mahajan's disclosure of a remote server is not the same thing as disclosing a remote database, correct?”—Dr. Nesbitt testified, “[n]ot exclusively.” Ex. 2011, 123:8–12; see id. at 120:19–21. Dr. Nesbitt further testified that, [a] server would be more of a hardware device, where a database would be more of a software. It would be a place where the data is actually stored within a remote computer or remote server. So it’s the hardware versus what’s in the hardware is the distinction between the two. Id. at 122:17–23; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 63 (Patent Owner’s expert opining that “[d]isclosure of sending data to remote server for storage, without more, is insufficient to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the server contains a database.”). The ’855 patent also distinguishes between a “remote database” and a “remote server.” See Ex. 1001, 8:33–34 57 (“[t]he data uploaded to the Internet, i.e., a remote database or remote server or memory remote to the system”); id. at 26:48–51. At oral argument,” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,905,855 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,905,855
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.