- Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01150 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 are unpatentable as obvious over Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and Moro, Reiter, or Remillard.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 would have been obvious over the combination of Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and either Moro (48Pet.), Reiter (49Pet.), or Remillard (50Pet.).” slip op. at 126
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“12. Motion to Exclude Patent Owner moves to exclude paragraphs 8, 24, 27–30, 32 and 38 of” slip op. at 123
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01148 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations in each of the three trials.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 would have been obvious over the combination of Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and either Moro (48Pet.), Reiter (49Pet.), or Remillard (50Pet.). IV. ORDER ORDERED that 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,556 B1 are unpatentable as a result of each trial as a separate matter, IPR2017-01148, IPR2017-01149, and IPR2017-01150;” slip op. at 126
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“observations from that deposition or seek authorization to file a sur-reply. In view of these circumstances, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 126
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01151 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 23 and 25–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and any one of Moro, Reiter, or Remillard.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“would not have interpreted Young ’801’s system as restricted to a single page limited to time slots ranging from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm as depicted in Figure 6 of Young ’801. See Ex. 1720 ¶ 24 (describing Dr. Bovik’s restricted view of Young ’801 as unreasonable). This restricted reading of Young ’801 unreasonably constrains the use of the guide to 1.5 hours, something the Petitions do not do, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments that the Reply shifts to new theories. See Rep. Opp. Mot. Exc. 2–5. To elaborate and address Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Bovik’s testimony, Mr. Wechselberger responds with a citation documenting well-known cursor navigation aspects of the same concept involved in spreadsheets (Ex. 1722) and elaborates about minimal program guide layout or format changes that go hand-in-hand with the Petitions’ assertions of guide size reduction. See Ex. 1720 ¶ 24; Opp. Mot. Exc. 9–11 (discussing Ex. 1720 ¶¶ 36–37, 129– 131, 136–137, 158), 11 (noting Dr. Bovik stated in his deposition “a user would have been ‘confined to the visible screen’”) (citing Ex. 1721, 56:16– 23, 108:25–109:8, 116:17–117:2; Ex. 2706 ¶¶ 51–52). In summary, the Petition cites to portions of Young ’801 that describe the page mode and generally advance the theory of moving a cursor across, upward, and to the right to obtain consecutively displayed and successive portions of schedule information, citing portions that describe new pages and cursor jumps. Petitioner did not create a new theory about how the page guide operates but responded to Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner chose not to avail itself of the opportunity to depose Dr. Wechselberger about his second declaration and thereafter file observations from that deposition or seek authorization to file a sur-reply. In view of these circumstances, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 92
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“materially similar description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 2706 ¶¶ 1–19). During the Oral Hearing, Patent Owner indicated any differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s descriptions do not create a dispositive issue. See Tr. 66:11–18. On this record, Petitioner’s description comports with the level of ordinary skill implied by the prior art references discussed further below. Accordingly, we adopt it.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“8. Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and Moro Petitioner persuasively shows that claims 23 and 25–27 the” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Marker Volkl USA, Inc. v. Kneebinding, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2018 · IPR2017-01265 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 4–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by DE ’298 and obvious over Boussemart and DE ’298.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 14.3 Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s assertions, arguing that the ’867 patent’s claim language and Specification establish that the two elements “are inextricably linked.” Pet. Reply 1–9. Although we are not in complete agreement with either parties’ construction, we, nevertheless, agree generally with Petitioner, for the reasons set forth below, that the “lateral release assembly” and “upper heel housing” recited by claim 1 should not be construed as being separate functional parts of the upper heel assembly that separate and isolate lateral and vertical release forces, respectively. We begin our analysis with the express claim language. Specifically, claim 1 recites in part “a lower heel assembly attached to the ski” and “an upper heel assembly coupled to the lower heel assembly and having a lateral release assembly for applying lateral securing pressure to the ski boot, the upper heel assembly comprising an upper heel housing that is configured to compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward.” Ex. 1001, 11:36– 12:2. Thus, from the claim itself, we know that (1) the “upper heel assembly” is coupled to the “lower heel assembly” and, thus, attached to the ski; (2) this associated upper/lower heel assembly has a “lateral release assembly”; (3) the lateral release assembly is for “applying lateral securing pressure to the ski boot”; and (4) the upper heel assembly “is configured to compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward.” However, none of this claim language requires that the “lateral release assembly” and “upper heel housing” must be treated as separate functional parts of the upper heel assembly that separate and isolate lateral and vertical release forces,” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Regarding the level of skill in the art, Petitioner asserts: a POSA in the February 18, 2003 timeframe would be an individual with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or related technology and three to five years of experience in either the design, fabrication, or manufacture of ski bindings and related equipment, research concerning ski bindings and related equipment, or the development of standards concerning ski bindings or related equipment, in addition to ten years or more of personal experience using ski bindings. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 32). In response, “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) for purposes of the ’867 patent.” PO Resp. 3 (citing Pet. 14–15). Having considered the evidence, we find that Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill is correct. We also note that the cited references often reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention, and that the references cited here appear to reflect the level agreed to by the parties. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [can] reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art”).” slip op. at 11
- BurdenUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that DE ’298 does not disclose an “upper heel assembly” that compresses the heel portion of the ski boot downward. PO Resp. 25–30. Patent Owner argues that “the disclosure of DE ’298 makes clear that the hold-down member 13 and heel holder 25 only resist upward motion by the ski boot heel – they do not ‘compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward’ by providing downward force on the heel.” PO Resp. 26. To support its position, Patent Owner provides an annotated copy of the annotated copy of Figure 2, provided by Petitioner and designated “Fig. Q” in the Petition. See Pet. 41. More particularly, Patent Owner annotated Petitioner’s “Fig. Q,” to show “a gap (circled in purple) between the top edge of the ski boot sole (which Petitioner added; the original figure in DE ’298 does not show the boot) and the bottom edge of arms 26 of heel holder 25.” PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 62). Figure 2, annotated, depicts the DE ’298 releasing/retaining device of a releasing ski binding. And, because there is a “gap” between the ski boot, superimposed by Petitioner in Fig. Q (see, e.g., Pet. 41), and arms 26 of heel holder 25, Patent Owner argues that DE ’298 “cannot provide downward force as the arms 26 do not touch the ski boot heel.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63).4 Therefore, although Patent Owner acknowledges that DE ’298 discloses that its hold-down member “hold[s] the shoe down ‘against upwardly pivoting’” (PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, 4), Patent Owner argues that merely “[o]pposing upward motion does not compress the ski boot downward as required by the challenged claims.” 5 PO Resp. 28. 4 The cited portions of Dr. Dodge’s Declaration largely mirror the language set forth in the corresponding portion of the Patent Owner Response. 5 Patent Owner submits that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘compress’ means ‘to squeeze or press together’, or ‘to make smaller as if by squeezing.’” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2003). Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s reading of DE ’298 is strained, that other portions of the reference make clear that DE ’298 discloses an “upper heel assembly” that does in fact compress the heel downward, and that any purported “gap” in the drawing is a red herring that does not comport with basic physics. Pet. Reply 15–18.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that DE ’298 does not disclose an “upper heel assembly” that compresses the heel portion of the ski boot downward. PO Resp. 25–30. Patent Owner argues that “the disclosure of DE ’298 makes clear that the hold-down member 13 and heel holder 25 only resist upward motion by the ski boot heel – they do not ‘compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward’ by providing downward force on the heel.” PO Resp. 26. To support its position, Patent Owner provides an annotated copy of the annotated copy of Figure 2, provided by Petitioner and designated “Fig. Q” in the Petition. See Pet. 41. More particularly, Patent Owner annotated Petitioner’s “Fig. Q,” to show “a gap (circled in purple) between the top edge of the ski boot sole (which Petitioner added; the original figure in DE ’298 does not show the boot) and the bottom edge of arms 26 of heel holder 25.” PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 62). Figure 2, annotated, depicts the DE ’298 releasing/retaining device of a releasing ski binding. And, because there is a “gap” between the ski boot, superimposed by Petitioner in Fig. Q (see, e.g., Pet. 41), and arms 26 of heel holder 25, Patent Owner argues that DE ’298 “cannot provide downward force as the arms 26 do not touch the ski boot heel.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63).4 Therefore, although Patent Owner acknowledges that DE ’298 discloses that its hold-down member “hold[s] the shoe down ‘against upwardly pivoting’” (PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, 4), Patent Owner argues that merely “[o]pposing upward motion does not compress the ski boot downward as required by the challenged claims.” 5 PO Resp. 28. 4 The cited portions of Dr. Dodge’s Declaration largely mirror the language set forth in the corresponding portion of the Patent Owner Response. 5 Patent Owner submits that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘compress’ means ‘to squeeze or press together’, or ‘to make smaller as if by squeezing.’” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2003). Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s reading of DE ’298 is strained, that other portions of the reference make clear that DE ’298 discloses an “upper heel assembly” that does in fact compress the heel downward, and that any purported “gap” in the drawing is a red herring that does not comport with basic physics. Pet. Reply 15–18.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,955,867 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,955,867 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · PGR2017-00015 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–4 not unpatentable: the obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed elastic fastener limitation, and claim 3 was not shown indefinite or lacking written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’612 patent and cited prior art. For example, the ’612 patent describes a fluid inflatable system that uses elastic valve 20A (e.g., mechanical gasket, O-ring, etc.) for sealing fluid inside multiple containers (e.g., water balloons). See Ex. 1001, 1:22–24, 3:10–16. In any event, none of the issues in this case turn on the definition of a POSA, and the prior art of record provides ample evidence of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”’) (internal citation omitted).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“1. Terms Construed in the Institution Decision We construed the term “elastic fastener” in our Decision on Institution, which is set forth in the following table. Inst. Dec. 14. Claim Term Construction in Institution Decision elastic fastener “an elastic element for attaching things together” Neither party disputes the language of this construction. See generally Prelim Resp. 17; Reply. We adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodale Press, Inc. v. FTC, 407 F.2d 1252, 1256–57 (D.C. Cir. 1968)) (“‘an agency may not change theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change’ and ‘the opportunity to present argument under the new theory.’”)” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“While the terms “unfilled state” and “filled state” describe the fullness for a container, we do not agree with Petitioner that the claim language requires determining the precise amount of fluid for each state. Section 112(b) requires that we read claim terms in the context of the surrounding claim language, not in isolation. Telebrands, 733 F. App’x at 1020. When we look at the entire claim phrase—“regardless whether the first and second ones of the plurality of containers are in a filled state or an unfilled state”— the plain language is clear that regardless of whether the balloons are in either state, the “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other.” In other words, the exact volume of fluid or water needed to reach a “filled state” does not need to be determined in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. We are further persuaded because this is consistent with the district court’s construction of this term. See Ex. 1023, 19–20.” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“Based upon our review of the specification, and consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, Petitioner’s position is not persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that the ’612 patent does not provide such adequate guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art. On its face, Figure 1 of the ’612 patent (reproduced below) shows containers 18 in contact or pressing against one another with the reasonable clarity required by Vas–Cath Inc. Figure 1 of the ’612 patent is reproduced above. Although the ’612 patent describes, as Petitioner notes, that tubes 16 can be different lengths, we are not persuaded that the ’612 patent’s disclosure of an embodiment with different tube lengths detracts from the concurrent disclosure in Figure 1 of an embodiment, where it is difficult to describe containers 18 as being not in contact with each other. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the ’612 patent as describing the containers in Figure 1 as pressing against one another in an unfilled state. The ’612 patent indicates Figure 1 shows elastic valve 20A in an open configuration when container 18A is attached to tube 16A to allow container 18A to fill with fluid. Ex. 1001, 3:14–18. In this open configuration, container 18A is to be filled with fluid, after which, “it may be removed from tube 16A, whereupon elastic valve 20A closes, thereby closing the neck of container 18A and sealing the fluid inside.” Id. at 3:18–21 (emphasis omitted). The ’612 patent refers to Figure 1 to describe an embodiment where elastic valve 20A is in an open configuration to fill a container that has not been filled (i.e., unfilled) and removed from tube 16A. Thus, we are persuaded that, at least, Figure 1 and this accompanying description of Figure 1 in the ’612 patent provides sufficient written description for the recited limitation that “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other . . . in a filled state or an unfilled state.”” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,527,612 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,527,612 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2018 · IPR2017-00934 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–11, and 14–24 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“shows the relation between the content being display and the current time, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Vallone’s teachings to improve the interface by making it visually intuitive and interactive. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178. Dr. Rhyne’s testimony is credible and persuasively supported by the teachings of the underlying references. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 6, 7, 88, 142; Ex. 1003, Fig. 26, 1:44–49, 1:53–57, 18:32– 44, 19:1–3, 20:19–22. For example, as stated above, Vallone expressly discloses applying its interactive trick play bar more broadly to any device in which physical position in the material is readily ascertainable, such as a VCR. Ex. 1003, 20:19–22. In addition, Vallone describes the known problem of multimedia devices lacking interactivity and intuitive devices. Ex. 1003, 1:11–49. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of this problem and motivated to improve Wood’s digital VCR accordingly. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178. In addition, as Dr. Rhyne explains, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references to provide a single consistent interface for the” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“shows the relation between the content being display and the current time, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Vallone’s teachings to improve the interface by making it visually intuitive and interactive. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178. Dr. Rhyne’s testimony is credible and persuasively supported by the teachings of the underlying references. See Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 6, 7, 88, 142; Ex. 1003, Fig. 26, 1:44–49, 1:53–57, 18:32– 44, 19:1–3, 20:19–22. For example, as stated above, Vallone expressly discloses applying its interactive trick play bar more broadly to any device in which physical position in the material is readily ascertainable, such as a VCR. Ex. 1003, 20:19–22. In addition, Vallone describes the known problem of multimedia devices lacking interactivity and intuitive devices. Ex. 1003, 1:11–49. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of this problem and motivated to improve Wood’s digital VCR accordingly. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 158, 159, 171, 177, 178. In addition, as Dr. Rhyne explains, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references to provide a single consistent interface for the” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,768,147 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,768,147 - Necksgen, Inc. v. Simpson Performance Products, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2018-00133 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the asserted art taught claim 1[d] or establish motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally: “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request 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 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“the Preliminary Response. In our Decision, we determined that “[w]e do not need to construe expressly any claim terms for purposes of this Decision” because it did not appear, from the arguments presented, that any claim terms were in dispute. Dec. 6. When we considered the parties’ positions in reaching our Decision, we were aware that the term “tether” was defined in the ’529 patent, even though Petitioner did not state that expressly. In other words, we understood, and now explicitly determine, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer by setting forth a specific definition for “tether” in the ’529 patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (if the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs”) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Motivation to Combine & Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that we abused our discretion by failing to consider the appropriate claim scope when evaluating motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success. Req. Reh’g 10–14. First, as discussed above, we did not fail to consider the appropriate claim scope. Second, we have now set forth that claim scope expressly. In light of our discussion above, our analysis regarding motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success is no different from that which we set forth in our Decision. Dec. 11–15. Petitioner’s reiteration of the same positions set forth in Petition does not persuade us that we abused our discretion in finding that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been promoted to modify and combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument that we abused our discretion with respect to these issues.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,351,529 - DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00724 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 19 and 26 are unpatentable: claim 19 as anticipated by Hite and claim 26 as obvious over Hite and Baji; claims 32–36 and 41 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Negus, argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hite’s system with Hill’s teaching of a high access partition in order to increase storage efficiency and address Hite’s goal of providing “advertisers with less waste and greater cost effectiveness.” Pet. 60; Ex. 1008 ¶ 599 (quoting Ex. 1009, 3:21–35; citing Ex. 1010, 4:54–57). According to Petitioner and Dr. Negus, one of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine Hite and Hill— using Hill’s “high access partition allocated for high access data storage” to “store the high access advertisement data of Hite”—to “yield[] the completely predictable and desirable result” of “decrease[d] read and write times of advertisement data stored in Hite’s” storage devices, including optional video storage device 456. Pet. 60, 65; Ex. 1008 ¶ 599; see also Tr. 107:10–15 (asserting the same). Patent Owner argues Dr. Negus’ assertion that advertising data is” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“at least one addressable and reserved storage space is a partitioned area of a hard disk drive.” Ex. 1003, 49:55–58. Petitioner refers to Hite’s disclosures that its storage devices “can be . . . disks.” Pet. 27–28 (quoting Ex. 1009, 12:6–11; citing Ex. 1009, 10:44–49). Dr. Negus testifies that “‘disks’ at the alleged time of the invention of the ’494 patent were commonly known as ‘hard disk drives.’” Ex. 1008 ¶ 680 (emphases omitted). Petitioner and Dr. Negus represent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would, therefore, “have understood Hite to disclose the use of an entire ‘disk’ (or ‘hard disk’) as the ‘Video Storage Device’” or the RD. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 680). Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Negus, further contends that “[w]hen the entire ‘hard disk’ storage space is undivided, it is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘partitioned area of a hard disk drive.’” Pet. 28; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 680, 683. We disagree. Based on Hite’s explanation that “[t]he storage devices used to implement” its system “can be . . . disks” as well as the evidence before us that “disks” or “hard disks” were known as “hard disks drives” at the relevant time, we agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Hite to use an entire disk, hard disk, or hard disk drive for OVS Device 456 and for the RD. Ex. 1009, 10:44–49, 12:6–11; Ex. 1008 ¶ 680; see Ex. 3002 (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2002)), 246 (explaining, within definition of “hard disk,” that a “hard disk” is “[a]lso called: hard disk drive” and defining “hard disk drive” as “See hard disk” (emphases omitted)). We part ways with Petitioner, however, in its proffered conclusion that such an “entire,” “undivided” hard disk or hard disk drive falls within the ordinary meaning of “partitioned area of a hard disk drive.” Pet. 28; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 680, 683; see Ex. 3001, 1087 (defining “partition” as “divide into parts”). The claim language expressly requires a “partitioned area of”—not a whole, entire, or undivided—hard disk drive. Thus, we disagree that an entire hard disk or hard disk drive constitutes the “partitioned area of a hard disk drive” required by claim 32. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that Hite discloses “wherein said at least one addressable and reserved storage space is a partitioned area of a hard disk drive,” as recited in dependent claim 32. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 32 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“e. Conclusion Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 19 is anticipated by Hite. 4. Dependent Claim 26 Claim 26 depends from independent claim 19 and recites, in relevant part, “processing circuitry configured to dynamically merge the particular advertising data with digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device.” Ex. 1003, 49:6–9. The plain claim language unambiguously and expressly requires that it is the “digital media content” that must be “pre-stored.” Yet in addressing the limitation, the Petition represents, and Dr. Negus testifies, that Hite discloses “‘particular advertising data’ that is ‘pre-stored in said at least one storage device’ (prior to the ‘dynamic merging’ with ‘digital media content’),” because commercials targeted for a display site or consumer according to CID codes are stored in the RD or video storage device. Pet. 26 (emphasis added); Ex. 1008 ¶ 646 (emphasis added). These assertions that Hite’s system pre-stores what Petitioner identifies as the “particular advertising data,” targeted commercials selected using CID codes, fail to address or show adequately that Hite discloses “digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device,” as claim 26 explicitly requires. Thus, we are unpersuaded that Hite discloses “digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device,” as recited in dependent claim 26. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 26 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proffered rationale for combining Hite with Hill is not adequately supported by the record. Specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s assertion that advertising data is “high access” data is a conclusory statement that fails to “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record” to support an obviousness determination. In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d at 1380. Although Hite discusses preempting broadcast commercials with stored commercials at broadcast breaks (see Ex. 1009, 7:24–30), Petitioner does not cite any portion of Hite, or provide any evidence at all, that explains how frequently the advertising data would have been accessed. Accordingly, because Petitioner has not shown adequately that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hite and Hill to arrive at “addressable and reserved storage space for storing the particular advertising data,” as recited in independent claim 19, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 19 is obvious over Hite and Hill.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,053,494 - 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
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.