- Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01357 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14–17, 21, 22, and 24–26 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Park, Kim, Hileman, Pugliese, and Mault.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“does not equate an “acquisition request” exclusively with a shopping or purchase request. See Ex. 3006, 10–11. Rather, the specification repeatedly uses the phrase “purchase or otherwise acquire” to indicate that a delivery agent may acquire goods by means other than purchasing or shopping. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:25–27 (“[T]he user specifies the exact location from which the selected delivery agent is to purchase or otherwise acquire the product, such as a retail store location.”); id. at 7:56–58 (“If the product is approved at 120, the delivery agent will purchase or otherwise acquire the product on behalf of the customer at 121.”); id. at 2:24–28 (“[T]he user provides the service provider with information regarding the type of product desired and the shopping or acquisition location from which the user desires to purchase or otherwise obtain the product.”) (emphases added). Consumeron’s argument that the specification “uses the word ‘or’ to refer to things that are synonymous to each other” is not persuasive. See PO Resp. 10; see also PO Sur-Reply 3–4 (essentially same). As noted above, the specification uses the phrase “purchase or otherwise acquire.” Ex. 1001, 5:25–27, 7:56–58 (emphasis added); see also id at 2:24–28 (similar). By including the adverb “otherwise,” the specification makes clear that purchase and acquire are not used synonymously, but rather that acquiring is broader and encompasses other ways of obtaining a product. See Ex. 1039, 1 (“otherwise” means “in a different way or manner”). Indeed, the specification unequivocally describes instances where the delivery agent acquires a product without purchasing or shopping for it. For instance, the specification explains that the customer may “pre-purchase[]” goods such that the customer requests simply that the delivery agent “pick-up” of the goods: [T]he customer has the option of paying the retailer or seller directly, in which case the customer will only be billed for the pick-up and delivery services provided. . . . If pre-purchased by the customer, the delivery agent obtains a receipt showing proof of pre-payment by the customer. Id. at 8:15–23 (emphases added). Even more explicitly, the specification states that, “although discussed in the context of a customer who wishes to purchase a product, it should be understood that system 10 may be utilized to schedule both pick-ups and delivery of any type of goods, including free goods. Id. at 10:40–44 (emphasis added). Those disclosures collectively indicate that a delivery agent can fulfill an acquisition request without necessarily shopping for or purchasing goods. Consumeron attempts to distinguish those descriptions, urging that they refer to an “alternative” embodiment that “does not expand the meaning of the term ‘acquisition request’ beyond its ordinary meaning.” PO Sur- Reply 4. But that argument is premised on an incorrect assumption that the ordinary meaning is limited to purchasing or shopping. Here, nothing in the intrinsic record suggests that the term “acquisition request” excludes the specification’s embodiments where “pre-purchased” or “free” goods are only in need of “pick-up.” To the contrary, as noted above, the specification repeatedly states the delivery agent may “otherwise acquire” goods without purchasing them, thereby, indicating that the agent can fulfill an acquisition request without necessarily shopping for the goods on the customer’s behalf. See Ex. 1001, 5:25–27, 7:56–58.” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We previously construed the term “acquisition request” in the related 865 IPR to encompass “not only a request for an agent to shop for and purchase goods for delivery to a customer, but also to encompass a request for a delivery agent to simply pick up and deliver goods that have been prepurchased by the customer.” See Ex. 3006, 9–11 (granting institution in conjunction with construing “acquisition request”). As noted above in Section I.A (“Related Matters”), the 865 IPR centers on the ’465 patent, whose lineage derives from the same application—the ’867 application—as the ’835 patent challenged here. Compare Ex. 1001, 1:7–15 (referencing Appl. No. 12/711,867), with Ex. 3005, code (63) (also referencing Appl. No. 12/711,867). Indeed, the ’835 and ’465 patents share essentially identical specifications and figures. Thus, based on the final record before us (as discussed below) and consistent with our prior construction in the related 865 IPR, we likewise determine here that Instacart’s construction of “acquisition request” is the more reasonable one. See SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents ‘derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.’” (quoting NTP, Inc., v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). More specifically, as we explained in the 865 IPR, the specification does not equate an “acquisition request” exclusively with a shopping or purchase request. See Ex. 3006, 10–11. Rather, the specification repeatedly uses the phrase “purchase or otherwise acquire” to indicate that a delivery agent may acquire goods by means other than purchasing or shopping. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:25–27 (“[T]he user specifies the exact location from which the selected delivery agent is to purchase or otherwise acquire the product, such as a retail store location.”); id. at 7:56–58 (“If the product is approved at 120, the delivery agent will purchase or otherwise acquire the product on behalf of the customer at 121.”); id. at 2:24–28 (“[T]he user provides the service provider with information regarding the type of product desired and the shopping or acquisition location from which the user desires to purchase or otherwise obtain the product.”) (emphases added).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Although the district court considered “intentional delay” in the course of construing the term “real time,” the district court does not appear to have accepted Consumeron’s narrower construction in that regard. More accurately, the district court stated it “sees no reason that a ‘real-time’ transmission of data could not both involve no inherent delay and permit a system that requires multiple ‘clicks’ to operate.” Ex. 1035, 24 (emphasis added). In addition, the district court quoted from a technical dictionary, which provided: The basic definition of real-time data is that it is data that is not kept or stored, but is passed along to the end user as quickly as it is gathered. It is important to note that real-time data does not mean that the data gets to the user instantly. There may be any number of bottlenecks related to the data collection infrastructure, the bandwidth between various parties, or even just the slowness of the end user’s computer. Real-time data does not promise data within a certain number of microseconds. It just means that the data is not designed to be kept back from its eventual use as it is collected. Id. at 25 (citing “Technopedia”). In other words, the district court contemplated that real-time data includes data that is transmitted as it is gathered despite some inherent delay in transmitting and accessing the data, such as bottlenecks in the infrastructure, slowness of the user’s computer, or “multiple clicks” by the user. With that in mind, we reject Consumeron’s attempt to alter our construction of “real-time” to exclude so-called “intentional delay.” Thus, consistent with the district court and our institution decision, we maintain that “real-time” transmission means “data that is passed along as it is gathered.”” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Instacart submits that one skilled in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like,” but that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 17–20). 1 WO 01/11523 A1, published Feb. 15, 2001 (Ex. 1005) (“Park”). 2 Certified translation of KR2003-0085802, published Nov. 7, 2003 (Ex. 1006); corrected certified translation of Figure 2 (Ex. 1038); and original Korean language version (Ex. 1007) (collectively, “Kim”). 3 US 2003/0040944 A1, published Feb. 27, 2003 (Ex. 1009) (“Hileman”). 4 US 2002/0072974 A1, published June 13, 2002 (Ex. 1010) (“Pugliese”). 5 US 2002/0027164 A1, published Mar. 7, 2002 (Ex. 1016) (“Mault”). We discern no material difference between the levels of skill in the art espoused by the parties. Nor does Consumeron’s expert. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 20 (“Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA is not materially different from my definition.”). Accordingly, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Instacart.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 10,628,835 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,628,835 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01356 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 13–17 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a) over the grounds based on Park and Kim, with Hileman or Pugliese for specified dependent claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We discern no material difference between the levels of skill in the art espoused by the parties. Nor does Consumeron’s expert. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 20 (“Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA is not materially different from my definition.”). Accordingly, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Instacart.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“More specifically, as we explained in the 865 IPR, the specification does not equate an “acquisition request” exclusively with a shopping or purchase request. See Ex. 3006, 10–11. Rather, the specification repeatedly uses the phrase “purchase or otherwise acquire” to indicate that a delivery agent may acquire goods by means other than purchasing or shopping. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:58–60 (“[T]he user specifies the exact location from which the selected delivery agent is to purchase or otherwise acquire the product, such as a retail store location.”); id. at 7:7–9 (“If the product is approved at 120, the delivery agent will purchase or otherwise acquire the product on behalf of the customer at 121.”); id. at 2:9–12 (“[T]he user provides the service provider with information regarding the type of product desired and the shopping or acquisition location from which the user desires to purchase or otherwise obtain the product.”) (emphases added).” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“course of construing “real time,” the district court does not appear to have accepted Consumeron’s narrower construction in that regard. More accurately, the district court stated it “sees no reason that a ‘real-time’ transmission of data could not both involve no inherent delay and permit a system that requires multiple ‘clicks’ to operate.” Ex. 1035, 24 (emphasis added). In addition, the district court quoted from a technical dictionary, which provided: The basic definition of real-time data is that it is data that is not kept or stored, but is passed along to the end user as quickly as it is gathered. It is important to note that real-time data does not mean that the data gets to the user instantly. There may be any number of bottlenecks related to the data collection infrastructure, the bandwidth between various parties, or even just the slowness of the end user’s computer. Real-time data does not promise data within a certain number of microseconds. It just means that the data is not designed to be kept back from its eventual use as it is collected. Id. at 25 (citing “Technopedia”). In other words, the district court contemplated that real-time data includes data that is transmitted as it is gathered despite some inherent delay in transmitting and accessing the data, such as bottlenecks in the infrastructure, slowness of the user’s computer, or “multiple clicks” by the user. With that in mind, we reject Consumeron’s attempt to alter our construction of “real-time” to exclude so-called “intentional delay.” Thus, consistent with the district court and our institution decision, we maintain that “real-time” transmission means “data that is passed along as it is gathered.” 3. “mobile delivery agent system” In our institution decision, we adopted a construction of “mobile delivery agent system” consistent with the way the term was construed in the Delaware action, namely, “a mobile system that includes at least a device to capture video or still images and a device set up to communicate with a remote server.” See Inst. Dec. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1034, 1; Ex. 1035, 13–17). Neither party disputes that construction. See PO Resp. 12 (adopting our construction); Pet. Reply 1–7 (disputing only the meaning of other claim terms). Thus, we maintain our construction as stated above.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Again, we disagree with Consumeron. As Instacart points out, Park’s system and method is not limited to one-hour delivery. See Pet. Reply 19. To the contrary, Park teaches that items can be “delivered within the hour or within a customer specified delivery window” exceeding an hour. Ex. 1005, Abstract (emphasis added), 20:9–12 (describing “processing orders for deferred delivery (i.e. those not required to be delivered in the next hour)” (emphasis added)); see also Ex. 1044 ¶ 29. Moreover, while Park places some emphasis on delivery time, it also explains that its goal is to promote customer satisfaction. See Ex. 1005, 30:16–18 (increasing “dispatch efficiency and customer satisfaction”), 34:5–7 (resequencing delivery “to ensure 100% customer satisfaction”). In that regard, the reason that Instacart articulates for combining Park and Kim dovetails with Park’s objective of improving customer satisfaction by ensuring the product to be delivered is acceptable to the customer. See Ex. 1044 ¶ 65 (“[A] POSITA would have understood that a customer ordering goods would care little if an unacceptable product was delivered quickly.”).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,244,594 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,244,594 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01358 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 21–28 are unpatentable as obvious over the four asserted combinations of Park and Kim, with Hileman, Mault, or Pugliese where specified.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner offers a similar description, asserting that a POSITA “is someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science or the like” and that either experience or training can make up for a lack of the other. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 17–20). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record (Ex. 1003 ¶ 24) and consistent with the disclosure in the ’067 patent and the references cited in the Petition. Patent Owner’s definition is “not materially different” from Petitioner’s definition. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 20 (Patent Owner’s declarant acknowledging such). Thus, our analysis and findings would be the same under either sides’ proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the institution decision, we agreed with and applied the same MDAS construction adopted by the district court in the Delaware litigation. Dec. 12–14. That is, a “mobile delivery agent system” is “a mobile system that includes at least a device to capture video or still images and a device set up to communicate with a remote server.” Ex. 1034, 1. To the extent there was any substantive disagreement with this preliminary construction, we invited the parties to present their alternative positions at trial. See Dec. 14. Neither party has done so. See Resp. 13 (applying same MDAS construction); Reply 1–5 (addressing other claim construction issues, but not raising any issue with the MDAS construction). Accordingly, we apply the same construction of “mobile delivery agent system” here. ii. “real-time” The term “real-time” is not recited in the independent claims, but does appear in some of the challenged dependent claims. See Ex. 1001, 10:8– 14:16 (claims 14 and 18). In the institution decision, we agreed with and applied the same construction adopted by the district court in the Delaware litigation. Dec. 14–15. That is, that “real-time” has its ordinary meaning, which is “data that is passed along as it is gathered.” Ex. 1034, 2. Neither party has proposed an alternative construction. See Resp. 13 (applying same “real-time” construction); Pet. 14 (asserting that “the terms of the Challenged Claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning”). Accordingly, we apply the same construction of “real-time” here.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Specification does not exclusively equate an “acquisition request” with a shopping or purchase request. See Resp. 10–12. Rather, the Specification repeatedly uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire” to indicate that a delivery agent may acquire goods by means other than purchasing or shopping. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:4–6 (“[T]he user specifies the exact location from which the selected delivery agent is to purchase or otherwise acquire the product, such as a retail store location.”); id. at 7:24–26 (“If the product is approved at 120, the delivery agent will purchase or otherwise acquire the product on behalf of the customer at 121 and deliver the product.”); id. at 2:15–18 (“[T]he user provides the service provider with information regarding the type of product desired and the shopping or acquisition location from which the user desires to purchase or otherwise obtain the product.”). Patent Owner’s argument that the Specification uses the “word ‘or’ to refer to things that are synonymous to each other” is not persuasive. See Resp. 10; Sur-reply 4 (citing Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingeniosh, LLC, IPR2022- 00202, Paper 29, 18–19 (PTAB May 19, 2023)). As noted above, the Specification uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire.” Ex. 1001, 5:4–6, 7:24–26 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:15–18 (similar). By including the adverb “otherwise,” the Specification makes clear that purchase and acquire are not used synonymously, but rather that acquiring is broader and encompasses other ways of obtaining a product. See Ex. 1039, 1 (“otherwise” means “in a different way or manner”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner has also articulated a sufficient rationale for combining these elements of Park and Kim. See Pet. 20–23 (citing exhibits). Kim identifies a problem with purchasing a product from a website, i.e., that the product delivered to the customer may not match the images or videos of that product on the website. Ex. 1006, 2. Kim teaches this problem can be overcome by having the delivery service provider operate a MDAS to transmit an image of the actual product in real time to the customer so that after receiving the image the customer can send instructions back to the delivery service provider confirming that is the product they delivered. Id. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that, based on these teachings, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate those same steps into Park’s system and methodology to “enhance the reliability of the delivery,” “increase customer satisfaction,” and “save[] resources” by preventing the delivery of goods that, upon viewing, the customer might reject. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–56. Moreover, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings because Park’s system was already configured to send live video and images to the customer’s computer. Ex. 1003 ¶ 57. Indeed, while Park primarily discusses transmission of video and images of the delivery process to the customer, it expressly teaches that its objective is to “allow customers to interactively view, in real-time, the progress of his order, from reception to compilation to delivery though the route taken by the delivery agent.” Ex. 1005, 4:26–32 (emphasis added). Incorporating Kim’s teachings regarding elements 1.5–1.7 would further this objective, allowing the customer to interactively view images of the actual products compiled for delivery and send instructions back to the delivery agent regarding those products prior to delivery. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 57 (explaining that the combination allows Park’s system to perform the same intended functionality “in a more reliable way”). Accordingly, Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious to” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 10,115,067 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,115,067 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01359 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Park, Kim, and Williams; claims 11–13 are also unpatentable over those references with Hileman.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner offers a similar description, asserting that a POSITA “is someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science or the like” and that either experience or training can make up for a lack of the other. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 17–20). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record (Ex. 1003 ¶ 24) and consistent with the disclosure in the ’191 patent and the references cited in the Petition. Patent Owner’s definition is “not materially different” from Petitioner’s definition. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 20 (Dr. Mitzenmacher acknowledging such). Thus, our analysis and findings would be the same under either sides’ proposal.” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ii. “real-time” In the institution decision, we agreed with and applied the same construction adopted by the district court in the Delaware litigation. Dec. 14–15. That is, that “real-time” has its ordinary meaning, which in this context is “data that is passed along as it is gathered.” Ex. 1034, 2. Notably, this is the same construction Patent Owner advocated for in the Delaware litigation. See Ex. 1035, 4. Nevertheless, Patent Owner now seeks to add to that construction, urging that the district court “accepted” that the term “does not include any ‘intentional delay’ in the transmission.” Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1035, 22, 26); see also Sur-reply 16–17 (essentially same). Although the district court considered “intentional delay” in the course of construing “real time,” it did not include the additional language Patent Owner proposes in its construction. See Ex. 1035, 2. Moreover, the district court stated it “sees no reason that a ‘real-time’ transmission of data could not both involve no inherent delay and permit a system that requires multiple ‘clicks’ to operate.” Id. at 25 (emphasis added). In addition, the district court quoted from a technical dictionary, which provided: The basic definition of real-time data is that it is data that is not kept or stored, but is passed along to the end user as quickly as it is gathered. It is important to note that real-time data does not mean that the data gets to the user instantly. There may be any number of bottlenecks related to the data collection infrastructure, the bandwidth between various parties, or even just the slowness of the end user’s computer. Real-time data does not promise data within a certain number of microseconds. It just means that the data is not designed to be kept back from its eventual use as it is collected. Id. at 26 (citing “Technopedia”). In other words, the district court contemplated that real-time data” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Specification does not exclusively equate an “acquisition request” with a shopping or purchase request. See Resp. 10–12. Rather, the Specification repeatedly uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire” to indicate that a delivery agent may acquire goods by means other than purchasing or shopping. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:4–6 (“[T]he user specifies the exact location from which the selected delivery agent is to purchase or otherwise acquire the product, such as a retail store location.”); id. at 7:24–26 (“If the product is approved at 120, the delivery agent will purchase or otherwise acquire the product on behalf of the customer at 121 and deliver the product.”); id. at 2:15–18 (“[T]he user provides the service provider with information regarding the type of product desired and the shopping or acquisition location from which the user desires to purchase or otherwise obtain the product.”). Patent Owner’s argument that the Specification uses the “word ‘or’ to refer to things that are synonymous to each other” is not persuasive. See Resp. 10; Sur-reply 4 (citing Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingeniosh, LLC, IPR2022- 00202, Paper 29, 18–19 (PTAB May 19, 2023)). As noted above, the Specification uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire.” Ex. 1001, 5:4–6, 7:24–26 (emphasis added); see also id at 2:15–18 (similar). By including the adverb “otherwise,” the Specification makes clear that purchase and acquire are not used synonymously, but rather that acquiring is broader and encompasses other ways of obtaining a product. See Ex. 1039, 1 (“otherwise” means “in a different way or manner”).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner has also articulated a sufficient rationale for combining these elements of Park and Kim. See Pet. 22–25 (citing exhibits). Kim identifies a problem with purchasing a product from a website, i.e., that the product delivered to the customer may not match the images or videos of that product on the website. Ex. 1006, 2. Kim teaches this problem can be overcome by having the delivery service provider operate a MDAS to transmit an image of the actual product in real time to the customer so that after receiving the image the customer can send instructions back to the delivery service provider confirming that is the product they delivered. Id. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that, based on these teachings, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate those same steps into Park’s system and methodology to “enhance the reliability of the delivery,” “increase customer satisfaction,” and “save[] resources” by preventing the delivery of goods that, upon viewing, the customer might reject. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–67. Moreover, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings because Park’s system was already configured to send live video and images to the customer’s computer. Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. Indeed, while Park primarily discusses transmission of video and images of the delivery process to the customer, it expressly teaches that its objective is to “allow customers to interactively view, in real-time, the progress of his order, from reception to compilation to delivery though the route taken by the delivery agent.” Ex. 1005, 4:26–32 (emphasis added). reach Petitioner’s backup argument that this “clause . . . is a non-limiting statement of intended purpose.” See Reply 15–17; Tr. 29:12–30:6 (Petitioner acknowledging this is a “backup position”). Incorporating Kim’s teachings regarding elements 1.3–1.5 would further this objective, allowing the customer to interactively view images of the actual products compiled for delivery and, if acceptable, send approval for the delivery agent to purchase and deliver those goods. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 68 (explaining that the combination allows Park’s system to perform the same intended functionality “in a more reliable way”).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,202,191 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,202,191 - AT&T Corp. / AT&T Communications LLC et al. v. Dali Wireless Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 30, 2024 · IPR2023-00646 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed Leng-based grounds, including combinations with Cannon and Gupta.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“persuasive. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of evidence claim 1 would have been obvious over Leng alone or the combined teachings of Leng and Cannon.” slip op. at 93
Patent outcomesUS 8,682,338 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,682,338 - AT&T Corp. / AT&T Communications LLC et al. v. Dali Wireless Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 30, 2024 · IPR2022-01212 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 as obvious over Leng, and claims 4–12 as obvious over Leng, Cannon, and Gupta.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, the Board construes claims using the same claim construction standard employed in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under the principles set forth by our reviewing court, the “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). 1. Determining Load Percentage” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“persuasive. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of evidence claim 1 would have been obvious over Leng alone or the combined teachings of Leng and Cannon.” slip op. at 93
Patent outcomesUS 8,682,338 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,682,338 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00950 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–22 on all petitioned grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Markel – to accomplish Markel’s goal of a concealed electrode – is a reasonably sufficient basis or reason to combine the references. On this record, Petitioner demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to apply Nissilä’s electrode structure having a distinct exterior surface to the teachings of Markel because of the similarities in electrode structure and to achieve a stated goal of Markel. Nissilä’s electrode structure uses an external layer of “metal, electrically conductive plastic or a similar conductive material.” Ex. 1006, 5:32–37; Ex. 1003 ¶ 355 (“both references disclose an intermediate conductive material made of conductive plastic”). Petitioner has shown this structure could be adopted by Markel’s “hidden” electrode having a main body portion formed from conductive plastic and a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to achieve Markel’s stated goal of an electrode that is substantially concealed (or hidden) from a user. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 354. Even if a goal of Nissilä’s device is for the user to be aware of the electrodes to place them on their chest, as Patent Owner alleges, Petitioner shows that Markel’s concealment objective could be suitably achieved by use of Nissilä’s structure, even if Nissilä does not share a similar concealment objective. Id. ¶ 355 (“Markel’s hidden electrode is desirable because it increases aesthetics of the device while protecting the electrode from bumps or other damage.”). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has also shown sufficiently that a POSITA would be motivated to combine Markel and Nissilä to satisfy limitations [1.c.i], [1.c.ii], and [1.c.iii].” slip op. at 41
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ recitations are similar in scope. Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in education. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with both the scope of the claimed invention and the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that our decision would be the same adopting either proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“With respect to the preamble “[a]n electronic device for detecting a user’s cardiac signal,” as recited in elements [1.pre] and [15.pre], Petitioner submits that the language provides antecedent basis that defines language in the claim body. For example, [1.pre] and [15.pre] each recite “a user’s cardiac signal,” which is referred back to later in the claim bodies as “the user’s cardiac signal” . . . The phrase “a user” in [1.pre] and [15.pre] is referred back to in the claim bodies as part of “the user’s skin’s contact” . . . As another example, [15.pre] recites “An electronic device,” which is referred back to later in the claim body as “the electronic device” . . . Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the language “An electronic device for detecting a user’s cardiac signal” in [1.pre] and [15.pre] is limiting and should receive its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). We find Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the preamble of claims 1 and 15 persuasive. Petitioner has shown that the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, and is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00831 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the sole design claim would have been obvious over any asserted primary reference.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of the challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claim. slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“different, but not incompatible. On one hand, Petitioner proffers a person with a degree in industrial/product design who consults with a person of ordinary skill in the art having an electrical engineering, or similar degree. On the other hand, Patent Owner proffers a person having “a degree in Industrial Design or Mechanical Engineering, and at least two years of professional experience creating Industrial Designs of consumer products.” Prelim. Resp. 3. Considering that this is a design for an electronic “charger,” we find that both parties’ assertions as to the designer of ordinary skill appropriately include engineering and industrial design experience well-suited to a robust understanding of the function and aesthetics of charger devices. And, we do not find it out of the ordinary, as Petitioner contends, that a designer of ordinary skill would have collaborated with other technical professionals in designing such products. We also note that, under the present record, our analysis of this case would be the same under either party’s definition of the designer of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In this case, a verbal description of the claimed design is helpful to our analysis. Petitioner’s claim construction, particularly as it erroneously calls for certain elements to be “factored out,” is too general, and does not adequately address the overall ornamental visual impression of the claimed charger. See Pet. 14–30. With some exceptions, we find Patent Owner’s claim construction the more persuasive and consistent with the appropriate scope and overall ornamentality of the claimed charger. Prelim. Resp. 3–10. Our claim construction, below, is based on, and paraphrased to some extent, from Patent Owner’s proposed construction: Considering the overall visual impression of the claimed charger as shown in Figures 1–11 of the ’131 patent, the charger has an overall appearance of a compact ice hockey puck shape having a top face with a circular recess that evokes a contemporary appearance. The claimed design includes an overall cylindrical shape, with a circular shape that is visible in plan and bottom views. The top face is dominated by a prominent circular recess that is inset relative to a flat ring having a distinct proportional width relative to the circular recess. The overall cylindrical shape has a distinctive ratio of width (e.g., diameter) to height that, as shown in the figures of the claimed design, evoking the overall appearance of a compact ice hockey puck shape. The overall cylindrical shape includes non-orthogonal transitional edges (e.g., beveled or curved edges) between the sidewall and the top and bottom faces which contributes to the charger’s overall compact ice hockey puck appearance. The featureless flat bottom surface and sidewall are shown as continuous, unbroken, and uninterrupted by features that distract from the continuity of the design, and also contribute to the charger’s overall compact ice hockey puck appearance.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“’131 patent compared with Lee, we are persuaded that Lee is not an appropriate primary reference. While we agree that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the front face of the claimed charger and Lee as similar in appearance, a designer of ordinary skill in the art would consider not just the front face of the designs, but the overall appearance of the designs as a whole. See Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574 (The obviousness “inquiry focuses on the visual impression of the claimed design as a whole and not on selected individual features.”). the front face of the claimed design, but the smooth uninterrupted cylinder walls that seamlessly transition to a flat, planer, bottom surface that is a cleaner and more contemporary appearance from Lee’s stepped sidewall and raised yellow ring on the bottom face of Lee’s charger. The cylindrical characteristics of the claimed design evoke a stocky ice hockey puck shaped appearance different from the Lee’s narrower stacked disc shaped design. We find that the cumulative visually apparent differences of the sidewall, bottom face and overall cylindrical ice hockey puck shaped appearance and proportions of the claimed charger outweigh any similarity of the front faces, and thus we are not persuaded that Lee’s charger is a primary reference “the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design.” Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Carr and Lauka.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least claims 1 and 14 of the ’465 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Lauka. And because Instacart demonstrates that at least one claim of the ’465 patent meets the threshold for institution, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a),(c); SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of the ’465 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” Prelim. Resp. 29. Consumeron’s definition appears to overlap significantly with Instacart’s definition. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we adopt the level of skill in the art as articulated by Instacart.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“product ordered by the customer is available and does not contemplate a scenario where the product is unavailable or otherwise describe the action to be taken if the product is unavailable. See Pet. 17–22. We agree, at least based on the preliminary record. In particular, with reference to Figures 2 and 3, the ’848 parent application describes a method where (1) a customer chooses “a store where a desired product is being sold” (step 105), (2) the customer selects a delivery agent and sends an “acquisition request” to the delivery agent (steps 108, 109, 110), and (3) “the selected delivery agent travels to the store location . . . and finds the desired product to be acquired” (step 113). Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 17, 20, 23 (emphasis added). “The delivery agent then communicates to the customer that the product has been identified, and the customer has the option of inspecting the product in real-time” (step 117). Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). “Next, the customer either approves or rejects acquisition of the inspected product” (steps 119, 120, 122). Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis added). That description in the ’848 parent application clearly presumes that the product ordered by the customer has been located and is available for inspection, which is at odds with the additional requirements of claims 1 and 14 of “failing to locate an identified product” and “determining that the identified product is not available.” Ex. 1001, 11:20 (claim 1), 12:30 (claim 14) (emphases added). To the extent Consumeron argues otherwise, we are not persuaded at this preliminary stage. According to Consumeron, the customer’s rejection of the product means that “the agent fails to locate a product that is satisfactory.” See Prelim Resp. 11. But nowhere do we discern that the ’848 parent application hinges the identity and availability of a product on whether it is satisfactory to the customer. That a product might not meet a customer’s satisfaction does not negate the description in the ’848 parent application that the agent locates and identifies the product in the first instance before giving the customer the option to inspect and reject the product. Indeed, because the customer placed the online order with a store advertising the product, the presumption is that the advertised product is available and satisfactory to the customer.8 And, while conceivably the purchase of a product cannot be fulfilled in the event the product is unavailable, it would seem to be improper hindsight to derive written description support by “[w]orking backward from a knowledge of the claims.” Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, based on the preliminary record, the ’848 parent application does not provide sufficient written description for the terms noted above. As such, we find that Instacart demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“and Lauka. See Pet. 30–44, 47–49. We begin with Instacart’s challenge of method claim 1. Instacart provides a detailed mapping of how Carr satisfies all the recited limitations of claim 1, except limitation [1.0.3], for which Instacart points to Lauka. See id. at 35–44. In particular, Instacart cites the following evidence in support of its contentions that Carr and Lauka, when combined, teach or suggest each of the recited limitations of claim 1: Limitation 1.0.1—“A method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods through one or more agents of a service provider” (Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 39, 43, 45, 92, Figs. 1, 3, 6;; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 97–100)); Limitation 1.0.2—“each agent having a mobile agent system in communication with at least one remote server,” (Pet. 35–37 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 40–43, 53, Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–104)); Limitation 1.0.3—“with each mobile agent system including: a digital image capture device and a communication device, said method comprising:” (Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 74, 88, 94, 122; Ex. 1006, 3:19–28, 3:49–57, 4:10–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105– 109)); Limitation 1.1—“receiving, through the at least one remote server, a first acquisition request from a customer for a first set of one or more goods;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 60, 73, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–112)); Limitation 1.2—“contacting, through the communications device, the one or more agents;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57, 74; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–115)); Limitation 1.3—“upon failing to locate an identified product of the set of one or more goods, electronically transmitting information on a replacement product for the identified product of the set of one or more goods to the customer using the digital image capture device of the agent, including:” (Pet. 38–40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 95, 96, 105, 107, ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116– 119)); Limitation 1.4—“obtaining a bar or QR code of the replacement product;” (Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95, 107; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120– 122)); Limitation 1.5—“determining the information from the bar or QR code, wherein the information includes at least one image of the replacement product; and” (Pet. 40–42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95–96, 116; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 123–127)); Limitation 1.6—“sending the information for the customer to approve the purchase of the replacement product based on the information determined from the bar or QR code; and” (Pet. 42– 43 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51, 96–99, Fig. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128– 130)); and Limitation 1.7—“upon receiving approval of the purchase from the customer, acquiring the replacement product, via the agent.” (Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131–132)); Instacart also provides a reason why one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Carr and Lauka with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–96); see also id. at 37 (“In view of the teachings of Lauka, a POSITA would have recognized that it was obvious to implement the UPC scanner functionality of Carr’s handheld device using an ‘imaging device’ such as that taught by Lauka, which specifies that the ‘imaging device 206 can comprise a video or still camera’ and ‘can be used to capture images.’ Ex.1006, 3:49-57; Ex.1003, ¶¶105- 107.”).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,238,465 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00807 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes construing “defining an optically transparent window.” Pet. 8–10. Petitioner proposes that “for a cover to ‘define’ an optically transparent window simply means to allow passage of light to a relevant component through the cover.” Id. at 10. Patent Owner “does not object to the constructions proposed by Petitioner at this time.” Prelim. Resp. 18. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that no express construction of any term is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. The Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10–14, and 16–20 Over” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not explain persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reconfigured Kotanagi’s two rear electrodes meant for determining whether a potential between the electrodes decreases (to indicate lack of skin contact) to enable ECG measurements using the particular configuration recited in the claims. We have considered Petitioner’s contentions in light of both Kotanagi and Coppola and Petitioner’s proposed combination appears hindsight driven. The combination requires that a person of ordinary skill in the art selectively pick portions of each reference while also frustrating the purpose of Kotanagi’s electrodes of ensuring skin contact by determining a potential difference.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,474,483
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.