- PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01165 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Peloton would show at least one claim obvious over Morris and Ray.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Rawl’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “is a person having: (i) a bachelor’s degree in an exercise related field or mechanical or electrical engineering and (ii) three to five years of industry experience in designing cardiovascular exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34).6 Petitioner also asserts that a person could qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan with less education but more experience or less experience but more education. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). Patent Owner has not taken a position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. 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 ’340 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 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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 “does not believe construction of any term is necessary to resolve the invalidity challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29–30). Petitioner explains that, as of the filing of the Petition, none of the claim terms recited in the ’340 patent have been construed in a prior proceeding. Id. Patent Owner has not taken a position as to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends Morris and Ray describe exercise equipment (e.g., treadmills) that detect a user’s presence while using the equipment and present the user’s exercise data on a display while a user is exercising to motivate the user to exercise and improve the user’s exercise experience. Pet. 12. Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings of Morris and Ray by incorporating Ray’s camera and software instructions for validating user exercise data in Morris’ treadmill apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 13. In particular, Petitioner contends Morris provides an express motivation to install and use Ray’s camera for user detection by teaching that “its exercise equipment could be fitted with optical sensor(s).” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 33). Additionally, Petitioner asserts Morris’ treadmill includes an information processing system that processes sensor signals and includes virtual reality content on a screen displayed to the user. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32, 34–36, 50, 56–58, Figs. 6, 11–12C, claims 29–37). Thus, Petitioner contends “the signal processing and display system of Morris had the necessary capabilities to accommodate Ray’s user detection/validation software and implement, with a reasonable expectation of success, its functionalities that included producing and presenting the motivational image of the user exercising.” Id. at 13–14. Additionally, Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Morris and Ray because of “Ray’s express teachings that its user validation/motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Pet. 14 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57). Petitioner asserts incorporating these features into Morris’ treadmill “would have been obvious and produced predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 142–143).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,227,340 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01164 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 because Peloton showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 2–7, and 10–20 over Morris and Ray.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“degree in an exercise related field or mechanical or electrical engineering and (ii) three to five years of industry experience in designing cardiovascular exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). Petitioner also asserts that a person could qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan with less education but more experience or less experience but more education. Id. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’375 patent and the prior art of record. 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 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose any claim constructions and asserts that” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“such as treadmills that detect a user’s presence on the treadmill and present the user’s exercise data on a display while the user is exercising to provide a number of similar benefits including motivating a user to exercise. Pet. 16– 17 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 5, 26, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1004, 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56– 61, 13:20–30, Abstr.). Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings of Morris and Ray that addressed these similar objectives to achieve predictable results. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–140). Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have incorporated Ray’s camera and software instructions to validate a user’s exercise data into Morris’ treadmill with a reasonable expectation of success because Morris expressly taught that “its exercise equipment could be fitted with optical sensor(s).” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,796,375 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01163 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9, 12, and 14–20 would have been obvious over Morris and Ray.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Morris and Ray, in combination, teach or suggest each element of independent claim 1. Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Morris and Ray as proposed and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Morris and Ray.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray by adding several of Ray’s features to Morris’ treadmill, including Ray’s camera, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination proposed. Pet. 16–18. Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray because they provide complementary teachings and address similar objectives. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56–61, 13:20–30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 25, 33, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138). Petitioner also asserts that Morris contemplates use of an optical sensor, provides exercise data and “a human analog display that mimic[s] the user’s bouncing motion,” and includes a signal processing and display system with the necessary capabilities to implement the combination. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 139–143; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32–36, 50, 56–58, claims 29–37, Figs. 6, 11–12C). Petitioner further asserts that Ray expressly teaches that “its user validation and motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144). Finally, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proposed combination because it would have improved Morris’ the user as the intensity and duration of exercise increased” and Ray’s ability to share exercise data with a remote location. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:11–22, 11:55–59, 13:50–57; Ex. 1006 ¶ 50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138, 145); see also id. at 16 (arguing user motivation would have motivated the combination) (citing Ex. 1004, 8:22–26, 11:56–61; Ex. 1006 ¶ 25). At this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose any express claim constructions and states that the “claims . . . have not been construed by any courts as of the filing of th[e] Petition.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29–30). At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the construction of any term or phrase. We determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31– 34). Petitioner also asserts that a person could qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan with less education but more experience or less experience but more education. Id. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. At this stage of the proceeding and on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’227 patent.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,227 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00721 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–19, 21–33, 35–43, 45–50, and 52–62 are unpatentable as obvious over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak; the Board did not reach the Tarrant and Bell ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Dickens, opines that a person having ordinary” slip op. at 13
- BurdenUnpatentable
“(viii) Weighing of Evidence and Conclusion as to Obviousness Youtsey anticipates the claimed invention except that its sealing” slip op. at 97
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“(6) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Modify Youtsey Having considered and balanced the prior art for all that it teaches,” slip op. at 90
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, Patent Owner’s first objective indicia argument is” slip op. at 95
Patent outcomesUS 9,225,083 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,225,083 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00719 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak; the Board did not reach the alternative Tarrant and Bell ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“in that neither party proposes constructions for any specific claim terms. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Accordingly, based on our review of the complete record, we maintain and reaffirm that no explicit construction of any claim term is needed to resolve the issues presented by the parties and resolved in this Decision. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelOther
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Dickens’ testimony, proposes that a” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“(f) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Modify Youtsey Having considered and balanced the prior art for all that it teaches,” slip op. at 89
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, Patent Owner’s first objective indicia argument is unavailing. Petitioner’s Patent Application Patent Owner argues that Petitioner, in its own U.S. Patent Application No. 13/530,831 (see Ex. 2013, “the ’831 Application”) filed several years after the ’983 patent’s priority date, took positions contrary to and belying Petitioner’s positions in this proceeding. See PO Resp. 2, 71–73. In particular, according to Patent Owner, the ’831 Application “included claims directed to the same coupler-body grounding member/path limitations at issue here,” demonstrating that “five of Petitioner’s own inventors (i.e., [persons of ordinary skill in the art]) understood that a coupler-body grounding member/path was patentable.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013, code (57), Figs. 4, 5, ¶¶ 3, 5, 14, 18, claim 1; Ex. 2014, 4:6–14; Ex. 2015, 3– 6; Ex. 2016, 2); PO Sur-reply 3; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 190–199. Patent Owner cites Andersen Corp. v. Pella Corp., 300 F. App’x 893, 899–900 (Fed. Cir. 2008), as “finding statements made in the accused infringer’s own patent applications provided objective evidence that the challenged claims were not obvious.” PO Resp. 73. Petitioner in reply points out that the original claims of the ’831 Application were rejected by the Examiner, and the claims were not allowed until they were amended “to require the grounding member to be ‘exposed outside of the connector body,’ supporting that other features attribute to the non-obviousness of [Petitioner’s] claimed invention.” Pet. Reply 19–20; see Ex. 2014, 3:35–4:15 (issued claim 1 from the ’831 Application). Petitioner distinguishes the Andersen decision cited by Patent Owner as involving “long-felt need, the failure of others, unexpected results, copying, and praise by others,” none of which are present here. Pet. Reply 20. Patent Owner replies that the Examiner’s rejection in the ’831 Application “fails to change the fact that Petitioner’s own inventors thought that the original claims were nonobvious.” PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner additionally notes that the “rejection was based on a parent patent to the ’983 [p]atent,” which Patent Owner argues “confirm[s] that Petitioner’s inventors were trying to patent the same claimed invention believing it to be patentable.” Id. (citing Ex. 2015, 4–5).” slip op. at 94
Patent outcomesUS 10,446,983 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,446,983 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00718 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 10–17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak; the Board did not reach the Tarrant and Bell ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Dickens’ testimony, proposes that a” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“in that neither party proposes constructions for any specific claim terms. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Accordingly, based on our review of the complete record, we maintain and reaffirm that no explicit construction of any claim term is needed to resolve the issues presented by the parties and resolved in this Decision. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 10,965,063 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,965,063 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00720 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 29–33, 36–43, and 46 are unpatentable as obvious over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak; the Board did not reach the Tarrant and Bell ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Dickens, opines that a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’284 patent would have had either: (1) “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, or a related field, and three to four years of industry experience”; or (2) “a master’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, or a related field, and one to two years of industry experience.” Pet. 9; Ex. 1005 ¶ 11; Ex. 1026 ¶ 270. Dr. Dickens adds that this person “also would have been familiar with coaxial cables and connectors and/or the components and underlying technology used therein.” Pet. 9; Ex. 1005 ¶ 11. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Eldering, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering and several years of experience in the cable and telecommunications industry relating to the design, manufacture, or utilization of coaxial cable connectors in communications systems.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 27; Ex. 2042 ¶ 213. Dr. Eldering further opines that “[b]achelor’s degrees in engineering require basic coursework in physics and mechanics, and experience in the cable and telecommunications industry will result in use of the knowledge obtained in those courses as applied to particular engineering problems which occur with coaxial cable connectors.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 27. Dr. Eldering also states that “[a]lthough [his] definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] differs slightly from that offered by Dr. Dickens, adoption of [Dr. Dickens’] definition would not change any of the analysis or opinions offered” by Dr. Eldering. Id. ¶ 29. In the Institution Decision, we concluded that the differences in the levels of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Drs. Dickens and Eldering are insubstantial and do not impact the analysis of the issues presented. See Inst. Dec. 25–26. Patent Owner agrees with that conclusion. See PO Resp. 15. Petitioner does not address this issue in its post-institution briefing.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyOther
“proposed both for maintaining electrical continuity across the structure, and for excluding from the interior of the device such contaminates as moisture and dust.” Ex. 2035, 2:4–21 (emphases added). Bunyan describes various structural configurations for such gaskets (see id. at 2:22–30), and then discusses how such gaskets “exhibit a number of problems in actual use” (id. at 2:31–45) such that “it is frequently the case that gaskets providing satisfactory EMI shielding capabilities are unable to provide environmental sealing, thereby causing corrosion problems” (id. at 2:46–51). “As a result, the EMI shielding and environmental sealing functions have typically been seen as two separate functions requiring two separate products.” Id. at 2:51–60. Bunyan accordingly provides “an EMI gasket having both enhanced resistance to corrosion and a reduction in the compressive forces required to form a seal between adjacent surfaces in circumstances where both sealing and EMI shielding are required.” Id. at 5:3–10 (emphasis added); see also id. at Figs. 3–4, 5:51–63, 6:16–54, 7:4–12 (Bunyan’s gasket comprises a rod-shaped conductive elastomeric polymer 5 having rib sections 6, and a non-conductive polymer gel 7 disposed between the ribs to provide sealing). Thus, although Bunyan recognizes there are challenges in designing a gasket to provide both an environmental seal and a conductive pathway, there are ways to overcome these challenges. 11 Bunyan may not be prior art to the ’284 patent. See Ex. 1001, code (63); Ex. 2035, code (60). Patent Owner nonetheless argues Bunyan supports its arguments here, so we address it accordingly.” slip op. at 70
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“(6) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Modify Youtsey Having considered and balanced the prior art for all that it teaches,” slip op. at 89
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“For these reasons, Patent Owner’s first objective indicia argument is” slip op. at 94
Patent outcomesUS 10,038,284 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,038,284 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00794 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art combinations did not establish the claimed messaging through the server system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Tr. 78:6–10. Patent Owner responded “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination.” Tr. 78:13–14. We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” See Inst. Dec. 10. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ289 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. media player Patent Owner contends that, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’289 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 92–93). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player.’” Pet. Reply 1. Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 24–27)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device.” Pet. Reply 2 (alteration in original). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content and selects and controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content according to a media type of the selected media content.” Because Muthukumarasamy teaches that the media device displays media content from various disparate sources depending on the media type and media source, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood the media device loads an appropriate media player depending on the media type and source. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67). Petitioner, however, proffers insufficient evidence or argument that the content choices described in paragraph 47 of Muthukumarasamy would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to understand a media player is obtained and loaded in the content presentation device. Rather, Dr. Bederson makes conclusory statements without providing evidence to support the assertions (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Muthukumarasamy discussed above. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more messages in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file,” and “identify a location of the particular media player.” Pet. 41–45. More specifically, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate control of internet content presented at the content presentation device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward.” Pet. 65. However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the content presentation device” (Pet. Reply 22), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required messages being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward teaches “receiving, in a server system, one or more messages from a personal computing device . . . wherein the one or more messages, . . . identify a particular media player for playing content from the file wherein the media player is a computer application operable to present content and control presentation of the content,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 6. Additionally, because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of claims 2, 7, and 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 8,904,289 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,904,289 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00795 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 5–9 were not shown unpatentable over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward because the claimed signals identifying a media player were not shown to pass through the asserted server system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ251 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“1. Media player Patent Owner contends, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’251 Patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 81–92, 95)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 23–26)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (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)))).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that Hayward does not cure the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy discussed supra. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more signals in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing the video content” (Pet. 38–41). More specifically, Petitioner contends “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward” (Pet. 15, 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 60, 102)). However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device . . .” (Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis omitted)), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required signals being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00793 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ528 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“‘media player’ in the ’528 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 83–91, 94)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 21–24)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (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)))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded. Even if the zHub and the zNode would be used to control the volume on the TV on which the streamed content is displayed, this device cooperation does not show the particular messaging recited in the claim. More specifically, even under Petitioner’s scenario that the “Volume Up” command flows from the IED (“personal computing device”) through the zHub/zNode (“server system”) to the TV (“content presentation device”), this command does not “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file.” Petitioner has not shown any messages in Muthukumarasamy that “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file” and flow from the IED through the zHub/zNode to the content presentation device. Thus, Petitioner’s assertions about devices working together fall short of proving by preponderant evidence that Muthukumarasamy discloses the particular messaging contents and path recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,782,528 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,782,528
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.