- PTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00209 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that PLR would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“focuses on a high-level comparison of the references. See Prelim. Resp. 14– 19. Such high-levels of similarity are to be expected as all of the references involve advertising in computer game programs. But such high-level similarity is not sufficient. Instead, Patent Owner must demonstrate that the references relied on in the Petition are substantially the same in all material respects to the prior art the Examiner actually relied on. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01445, Paper 15 at 16 (PTAB March 2, 2022) (Institution Decision) (“The issue is not just whether the same elements can be found in each of the references, but whether the elements function the same way. That is, even though Leong and Bates have the same elements, that does not mean that the elements interact with each other the same way or perform the same functions as recited in the claims.”); see also Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 15 (holding that prior art is substantially the same if “Petitioner relies on [the new art] in substantially the same manner as the Examiner cited [the previous art] during prosecution such that [the new art] discloses substantially the same information as [the previous art] in relevant part.”).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s statutory interpretation. Ho is a printed publication, having been published in January 2008, as Patent Owner acknowledges. See Ex. 1004, code (43) (publication date of January 17, 2008); see also Prelim. Resp. 45 (acknowledging publication date). On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that Ho is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), having been filed “by another . . . in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent.”11 See Pet. 7 (“For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner uses a June 26, 2007 priority date” for the ’662 patent); see also Ex. 1004, code (22) (filing date of July 12, 2006). Thus, Petitioner asserts a permissible ground of unpatentability” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“claim 115 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine the relevant teachings of Ho and Aoki. See Pet. 17–26, 30. With the exception of “hot spot” and “hot spot information,” which we discussed above in Section II.G.3(a), at the present time Patent Owner does not dispute that Ho teaches those limitations. See Prelim. Resp. 26–35. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information regarding the limitations identified above, including the Zagal Declaration, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that Ho teaches limitations 1(pre), 1(a), (1)(b)(1), 1(d), and 1(e) and that a person having” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,662 - PTAB · Apr 30, 2024 · IPR2024-00132 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–9 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that PLR would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim of the ’202 patent. Our factual findings, conclusions of law, and determinations at this stage of the proceeding are preliminary, and based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final decision as to the patentability of claims for which inter partes review is instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–9 of the ’202 patent on all of the grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 34
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The prior Board decision observed that Willis discloses sending advertising content based on physical geographic location but does not teach “checking what updated video-game content to send based on one of the factors including a type of the mobile 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reply arguments are improper new arguments, beyond the scope of the Petition, and should not be considered. Prelim. Sur-reply 1, 3. We disagree, as Petitioner’s reply arguments are responsive to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner preliminary response . . . .”). Furthermore, we expressly authorized Petitioner to file a reply addressing Patent Owner’s Section 325(d) arguments. communication device, a telecom service associated with the mobile communication device, and a service provider of the telecom service.” Ex. 1002, 41–42. As explained in detail below, Petitioner shows persuasively, at least on the current record, that both Hays and Levkovitz teach the limitation the prior Board decision found missing from Willis. Patent Owner does not contend that Willis includes disclosure similar to the disclosure Petitioner cites to in Hays or Levkovitz for this limitation. Accordingly, we conclude that the same or substantially the same art and arguments were not previously presented to the Office, and, accordingly, the first part of Advanced Bionics is not satisfied. We need not reach the second part. We are not persuaded that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under Section 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reply arguments are improper new arguments, beyond the scope of the Petition, and should not be considered. Prelim. Sur-reply 1, 3. We disagree, as Petitioner’s reply arguments are responsive to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner preliminary response . . . .”). Furthermore, we expressly authorized Petitioner to file a reply addressing Patent Owner’s Section 325(d) arguments. communication device, a telecom service associated with the mobile communication device, and a service provider of the telecom service.” Ex. 1002, 41–42. As explained in detail below, Petitioner shows persuasively, at least on the current record, that both Hays and Levkovitz teach the limitation the prior Board decision found missing from Willis. Patent Owner does not contend that Willis includes disclosure similar to the disclosure Petitioner cites to in Hays or Levkovitz for this limitation. Accordingly, we conclude that the same or substantially the same art and arguments were not previously presented to the Office, and, accordingly, the first part of Advanced Bionics is not satisfied. We need not reach the second part. We are not persuaded that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under Section 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“1 Patent Owner contends that Dr. Zagal’s Declaration “simply parrots the Petition” and, thus, should not be entitled to any weight. Prelim. Resp. 28– 33. The testimony quoted by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 30–32) includes citations to the prior art to support the opinions set forth and, thus, “disclose[s] the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based” (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95, 103, 118, 165–166 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 51; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 5, 6, 123, 127). We decline, at this stage of the proceeding, to discount Dr. Zagal’s testimony in its entirety and will give that testimony the appropriate weight on the points for which it is offered.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,731,202 - PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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))). To the extent necessary, we address the parties’ implicit claim constructions in the context of the arguments on the merits of the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “an undergraduate degree in game design, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working with computer gaming systems or software application development,” and that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–72). Petitioner’s recitation of the level of ordinary is consistent with the invention disclosed in the ’089 patent. It is also not disputed by Patent Owner at this time. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least” which we change to “about.”” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Figure 3 above is an example of the embodiment of Ho showing a wings button, a car, and a hamburger monster in the foreground. Ex. 1004, 5:1–5, Fig. 3. Ho describes how the various interactive information elements are used for game play. See id. at 5:11–38. For example, hamburger monster 56 may be engaged when character 52 fights and successfully slays the hamburger monster, car 58 may be engaged when character 52 enters the car, and “wings” button 54 may be engaged (for example when character 52 wishes to fly) by clicking on icon 54 using a pointer, or by using an enclosure moving between different icons to highlight icon 54 to engage the icon. Id. Because Petitioner has not shown persuasive evidence that a user would not have expected those objects to be ones that the user could interact with, Petitioner has not shown them to be background objects. Petitioner also argues that Ho teaches that activating the interactive information elements “does not disrupt gameplay” and is therefore “outside the primary focus of game play.” Pet. 31–32 (quoting 5:36–38). We do not find that argument persuasive for two reasons. First, we do not see how the fact that activating an element without disrupting game play means the element is in the background. Petitioner and its expert simply make a statement without any explanation. See id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 122. Such conclusory statements are not persuasive. Second, the language in Ho Petitioner relies on is not about the interactive information element, which Petitioner maps to the hotspot. Instead, Ho describes a sub-screen that appears after the user interacts with one of the interactive information elements, namely when the user slays the hamburger monster: “Similarly, making the character 52 slay the hamburger monster 56 may generate a sub-screen showing an advertisement of a chain of fast food restaurants. The sub-screen may also be overlain on the game environment and may not be disruptive to gameplay.” Ex. 1004, 5:35–38. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how a nondisruptive sub-screen that appears after an interaction with an object makes the object a background object.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,688,089 - Sony Group Corp. (Japan) / Sony Corp. Of America et al. v. MZ Audio Sciences, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 8, 2024 · IPR2022-01544 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish sufficient reasons to combine the references in any of the three obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field with coursework in signal processing, plus two years of academic and/or industry experience in signal processing or a related field. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 2. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art, other references of record, and the ’961 patent specification.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Petitioner relies on the plain and ordinary meaning and contends that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 8 (citing 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b)). Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that, for purposes of this Response only, all terms of the ᾽961 patent have their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 23. As Petitioner contends, it is not necessary Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we 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))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Dr. Scordilis. Based on the record, Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient reason to arrive at the claimed invention and satisfy the burden of showing obviousness. As Patent Owner essentially argues, Cabot (and all references relied upon by Petitioner and Dr. Scordilis) do not pertain to “quantizing a phase difference of the at least one overtone relative to the fundamental tone to embed at least one bit of the data to be embedded” as step 1C-2 requires. See PO Resp. 32–33. Petitioner also relies on Kudumakis to modify Srinivasan in asserting that step 1C-2 would have been obvious, but Petitioner’s reliance on Kudumakis is also faulty as explained below. See Pet. 22–27 (relying on Ex. 1006 (Cabot), Ex. 1007 (Kudumakis); Ex. 1028 (Risset), Ex. 1031 (Lipshitz), Ex. 1055 (“Cox-SSSW”); Ex. 1020 (“Cox- 1995” ); Ex. 1021 (“Wu”)). articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a sufficient reason to modify Srinivasan’s frequencies to embed a quantized phase difference between a fundamental and its harmonic into the harmonic as step 1C-2 requires. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“teachings of references can be combined only if there is some suggestion or incentive to do so”) (quoting ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As noted above, Dr. Scordilis states that Cabot merely “opens the venue for exploration” for an artisan of ordinary skill to “try to . . . explore” watermarks. Ex. 2011, 75:16–22. Dr. Scordolis’s testimony relates to an “obvious to try” rationale, but neither Dr. Scordilis’s testimony, nor Petitioner’s showing, satisfies the conditions to support that rationale. In particular, Dr. Scordilis does not testify, and Petitioner does not show, that the technique of embedding phase difference codes into a harmonic relative to its fundamental was one of “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions” and a “known option[]” for hiding data. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402 (indicating that under an “obvious to try” rationale, “[w]hen 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 in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 25
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The record supports Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr Scordilis’s testimony. Dr. Scordilis does not rely on any references that “have a frequencies specifically.” See Ex. 2011, 90:4–8 (testifying such references are “[n]ot in [his] report”). Moreover, Dr. Scordilis testifies that “[t]he value . . . of Cabot’s work is that he points to the fact that even in this very controlled experiment, although phase is detectable in an A/B type of setup under many, many repetitions, it really opens the venue for exploration that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would try to capitalize and explore further to develop a watermark.” Id. at 75:16–22 (emphasis added). In summary, Dr. Scordilis testifies that no references (including Cabot) cited in his declaration discuss phase encoding of a harmonic phase relative to a fundamental phase for watermarking, and Cabot merely opens the door so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “try to . . . explore further to develop a watermark” using harmonic phase coding data. Id.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,289,961 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,289,961 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1, 11, and 16 under the Downs/EDACS and Kim grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“A. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and deny the Petition in view of the related lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)). However, Petitioner has since filed a Sotera stipulation, so named based on Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). See Ex. 1035. Thus, pursuant to the Interim Procedure, we will not discretionarily deny the Petition based on the related lawsuit. See Interim Procedure at 3 (“Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.”).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In assessing whether to exercise the Board’s authority to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board considers a two-part analysis. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, No. IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). First, in Part One, the Board considers whether “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. Id. at 8. If so, in Part Two, the Board then considers whether the petition demonstrates that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. In applying the two-part framework, the Board considers several nonexclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, No. IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,831,664 - PTAB · Mar 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01295 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 on both § 103 grounds: Shaffer with Saylor, and Gogic with Opitz.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the prosecution history. After the Examiner issued a final rejection of then-pending claim 1 (Ex. 1003, 125–138), Applicant amended claim 1 by adding the following limitations:” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“informing the Board of the stipulation Petitioner made to Patent Owner on December 27, 2023. Paper 8, 5 (citing Ex. 1034). The Stipulation reads: Motorola Solutions, Inc. stipulates that, if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes an IPR proceeding for U.S. Patent No. 8,994,830 on the grounds presented in the petition in IPR2023- 01295, Motorola Solutions, Inc. will not pursue an invalidity defense in the district court action (STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. Id. Petitioner has filed a stipulation that it “will not pursue an invalidity defense in the district court action (STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR.” Ex. 1034. Petitioner contends that its “Sotera stipulation moots Patent Owner’s (‘PO’) Fintiv arguments.” Prelim. Repl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034; Ex. 1032, 3). Patent Owner does not respond, in the Preliminary Sur-reply, to Petitioner’s Reply argument regarding discretionary denial or argue that we nevertheless should deny the Petition in light of Petitioner’s stipulation. See, generally, Prelim. Sur-Reply. Upon consideration of these factors and the parties’ arguments, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition in light of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation. See Guidance Memo 7.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Conclusion as to Independent Claim 1 We have considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties with respect to independent claim 1. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of institution that the combined teachings of Shaffer and Saylor meet all the limitations of independent claim 1 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had reason to combine their teachings in the manner described, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 53
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person having “at least (a) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (b) approximately 2 years industry experience in networking or communication systems, including interoperating different types of networks that include video feeds.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 45–47). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears to be consistent with the subject matter of the ’830 patent. This is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Polish. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. D. Claim Construction” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,994,830 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01293 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 on both § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review requires “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Determining whether a reasonable likelihood has been met has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, and Preliminary Sur-reply, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Accordingly, we grant the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and deny the Petition in view of the related lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)). However, Petitioner has since filed a Sotera stipulation, so named based on Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). See Ex. 1039. Thus, pursuant to the Interim Procedure, we will not discretionarily deny the Petition based on the related lawsuit. See Interim Procedure at 3 (“Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.”).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately three years industry experience in networking or communication systems, in particular addressing interoperability between different types of networks and satellite communications. Ex[1002], ¶52. Additional education in the fields of electrical engineering or computer science may serve as a substitute for experience in the field. Id. A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard. Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. Indeed, Patent Owner witness Michael Crane explicitly “accept[s]” it. Ex. 2001 ¶28. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the ’134 patent and the asserted prior art, and because there is no argument to the contrary at this stage of the proceeding, we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner construes two terms that are not actually recited in the claim. First, Petitioner states that “[m]ulticast” means “the delivery of information to a group of destinations simultaneously using the most efficient strategy.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001: 1:14–16). None of the challenged claims recite “multicast,” but each of the independent claims recite “multicasting.” This decision does not turn on the meaning of “multicasting,” as Patent Owner does not contest that the cited art teaches such a feature. Accordingly, we need not and do not construe explicitly “multicasting.”” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,489,134 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01292 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–21 on all three obviousness grounds: Ohel; Nigawara; and Nigawara with Doolin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting is set forth in § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of the ’802 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“The Director has issued additional guidance on the application of Fintiv. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022)5 (“Fintiv Memo”). According to the Director, “[w]hen a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition, it mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020)). To that end, “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Id. Petitioner has filed a stipulation that it “will not pursue an invalidity defense in the district court action (STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR.” Ex. 1029. Petitioner represents that it “has provided a Sotera stipulation in this proceeding” and” slip op. at 37
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Williams contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The claim language “storing at least one message having a lower priority between the first and the second message based on the determination,” does not appear limited to the instant in time at which data are committed to memory, nor does it appear to exclude continuing to store a message based on a determination that the message has a lower priority than another message. The claim language also does not appear to otherwise specify that the message is not to be stored until its priority is assigned. Patent Owner does not explain why the claim language should be read so narrowly. Prelim. Resp. 18–19; Prelim. Sur-reply 4–5.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,324,802 - PTAB · Feb 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01286 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claim 4 based on the grounds that Itoh and Itoh with Muljono render it obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“C. Disclaimer of Claims 1–3 and 5–12 A “patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. [§] 253(a) in compliance with [37 C.F.R.] § 1.321(a) . . . , disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (2019). A disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) is “considered as part of the original patent” as of the” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of the ’539 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s or the equivalent degree in electrical or computer engineering or a related field, and 2–3 years of professional experience relating to integrated circuit design.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13). Petitioner further contends that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for [a person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. Petitioner states that it “does not imply that a person having an extraordinary level of skill should be regarded as [a person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 3–4. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s contentions or propose a level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 8.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We first note that claim 4 recites “a smaller device size with a smaller gate width” rather than “a smaller device size and a smaller gate width.” Thus, we are not persuaded that the plain language of claim 4 suggests that gate size and gate width are two separate limitations. The Specification suggests that gate size and gate width are synonymous. In describing the transistors of main driver 11 in Figure 3, the Specification states that “pMOS transistors QP2 through QP4 and nMOS transistors QN2 through QN4 comprise transistors having a small device size (a narrow gate width) whose effect on the ratio tr/tf of output pulses is smaller than pMOS transistor QP1 and nMOS transistor QN1.” Ex. 1001, 6:36–40 (emphasis added). The enclosure of “a narrow gate width” in parentheses immediately following “a small device size” suggests that small device size is synonymous with narrow gate width in the context of the ’539 patent. Cf. Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“In this case, the specification consistently uses the words ‘graft’ and ‘intraluminal graft’ interchangeably. . . . The interchangeable use of the two terms is akin to a definition equating the two.”). Thus, one of 4 We adopt the references P1, N1, P2, N2, etc., used by the parties for the pMOS and nMOS transistors. ordinary skill would understand “smaller device size” and “smaller gate width” to be synonymous in light of the claim language and Specification. Patent Owner acknowledges that “the ’539 Patent does teach that in the context of its invention, gate width and device size are correlated.” Prelim. Resp. 11 n.3 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:35–40). On the preliminary record, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “smaller device size” and “smaller gate width” to be synonymous rather than two separate requirements.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham - PTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01230 · APJ Richard M Lebovitz · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Zhang and Javanifard, and over Zhang, Javanifard, and Kang for claims 9 and 18.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2023). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the alleged invention “would have a bachelor’s or the equivalent degree in electrical or computer engineering or a related field, and 2–3 years of professional experience relating to circuit design.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58. Petitioner further states “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for POSITA” [person of ordinary skill in the art]. Id. Petitioner states that “a person having an extraordinary level of skill should” not be regarded as POSITA. Id. Patent Owner, for purposes of this Preliminary Response only, does not dispute Petitioner’s definition a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 4. Based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill of one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “for the purposes of this proceeding and the analysis presented herein, no claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 4 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”)). Accordingly, Petitioner states that, in the Petition, it “analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by POSITA in light of the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314–17. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–61). Patent Owner responds that for the purposes of the Preliminary Response only, it agrees that no express construction of any term is necessary. Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting inter partes review.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Patent Owner’s contentions overlook the principle that the disadvantages disclosed in the prior art need not precisely match Petitioner’s reasoning to combine the prior art to make the claimed invention. According to KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20, any known need or problem in the field can provide a reason to combine elements. (“[N]either the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls . . . [A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”); see also In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[T]he motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness.”). Petitioner here provided sufficient fact-based evidence that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Zhang with Javanifard to improve flexibility (Pet. 20–21). Specifically, Zhang describes a fixed number of stages that would be unable to provide multiple output supply voltages when desired or necessary. Javanifard addressed this disadvantage by replacing the fixed booster circuitry with variable booster circuitry. Ex. 1006, 1:48–59. While it is true that Zhang describes only supplying a single voltage level, the reason to apply Javanifard to Zhang is to avoid redundancy when a device requires more than one voltage level by providing a single booster circuit capable of delivering multiple supply levels instead of requiring multiple fixed circuits that take up space and reduce flexibility. Petitioner’s reasoning is therefore logical and consistent with the objectives disclosed by Javanifard.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,207,701
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.