- Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2026 · IPR2024-01093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1–13 and 15–16 on anticipation and obviousness grounds, and claim 14 on obviousness over Choulis.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’164 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, or a comparable field of study, and at least three years of research or industrial experience with organic optoelectronic light-emitting devices. An individual with additional education could have less research or industrial experience and vice versa. Pet. 12. Patent Owner repeatedly refers to “a POSITA” without addressing the definition of that term or contesting Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Resp. 1, 2 n.1, 3, 8, 9, 15–21, 23, 26, 29, 32–33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44–49, 51–57, 61, 62 (bare references to “a POSITA”). Neither party indicates that the ultimate result on patentability would change depending on the definition selected. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is not contested, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art. See Ex. 1004, (code 57); Ex. 1006, code (57); Ex. 1008, code (57); Ex. 1009, code (57) (abstracts of the references asserted in the patentability challenges).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“because no information raised during the trial phase of this review changes the calculus: First and foremost, the plain terms of claim 1 include no language from which we reasonably can impose limits on the phrase “matrix material” as urged by Patent Owner. In addition, the specification includes no special definition of that phrase that supports importing Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing limitation into the claim. Furthermore, we are directed to no disclaimer of claim scope during patent prosecution that would support Patent Owner’s twice-rejected argument that the phrase “matrix material” in claim 1 excludes embedded dopants and dispersed agglomerations. And the extrinsic evidence advanced by Patent Owner during this review is ineffective to override the clear interpretation of “matrix material” that is established by the intrinsic evidence. Reply 1–7.10” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We find that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 13. We agree with Petitioner, in that regard, that Choulis explicitly teaches “using spin-coating as a method for depositing materials, which involves a simultaneous application process” as required by claim 13. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1044 ¶ 45).16 We 15 Petitioner raises Djobo as a background reference supporting that Choulis anticipates deposition of PVK by evaporation. Pet. 41. Patent Owner counters that Djobo, to the contrary, shows that Choulis does not teach deposition of PVK by evaporation. Resp. 48. In other words, both parties cite Djobo in connection with the ground based on anticipation by Choulis. Against that backdrop, we determine that Patent Owner waives any argument that Petitioner improperly cites Djobo as a background reference in support of the anticipation challenge, which is based on Choulis alone. Resp. 48 (nowhere asserting that the challenge is deficient on that basis). That waiver arises because no argument, in that regard, is raised in Patent Owner’s Response see Inst. Dec. 34 (“The Board shall deemed waived any issue not raised by Patent Owner in a timely response to the Petition . . . .”). 16 Patent Owner’s statement that “spin coating tends to cause phase separation” is not developed adequately on this record and, therefore, is further agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “has not contested this point.” Resp. 48. “Therefore, there is no genuine dispute regarding the unpatentability of claim 13,” although Patent Owner raises “arguments concerning evaporation, which is a distinct process from spin-coating” relevant to the additional limitations of claim 14. Reply 16. We determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 13. Patent Owner, however, has the better position on whether Choulis anticipates claim 14, which “includes the requirement of applying matrix materials via evaporation coating.” Reply 16. Petitioner seems to abandon that challenge in the Reply by raising arguments that appear, on this record, to bear exclusively on whether the subject matter of claim 14 would have been obvious over Choulis.17 Id. at 16–17. Those arguments are insufficient to counter Patent Owner’s reasons why Choulis does not anticipate the “evaporation coating” limitation of claim 14. Compare id., with Resp. 48. On this record, therefore, we determine that Petitioner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 14. unpersuasive to persuade us “that Choulis does not have three matrix materials.” Sur-reply 15. That argument runs counter to Choulis’s explicit, intrinsic disclosures, which illustrate (Ex. 1004, Fig. 4) and describe (id. ¶ 30) an organic light emitting layer composed of three matrix materials. See Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 4, ¶ 30); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–88 (persuasive declaration testimony of Dr. Holmes, cited at Pet. 24–25). 17 There is some confusion on this point, given that both parties sometimes collapse, into a single argument, whether Choulis anticipates or renders obvious claim 1. Compare Resp. 48, with Reply 16–17.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“On this record, therefore, we determine that Choulis, at minimum, suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized PMMA as a suitable alternative to PVK in Choulis’s Figure 4 embodiment, notwithstanding any differences raised by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. Patent Owner’s argument that no disclosure in Choulis suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have found it desirable to use PMMA in place of PVK in Choulis’s devices” misses the mark, where Choulis includes both PMMA and PVK in lists of materials suitable for use as host or matrix materials. Resp. 38; Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. “Our caselaw is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it is a suitable option.’” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Even if Choulis does not expressly disclose substituting PMMA for PVK in the Figure 4 embodiment, “an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to make that substitution.” Reply 10 (citing Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 100; Ex. 1044 ¶ 23)). The suggestion for that substitution is set forth unambiguously in Choulis’s listing of both “PVK” and “PMMA” as materials suitable for use as a first “host” material in Choulis’s organic functional layer; that is, “the light emitting layer” that is “described above” in Figure 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. ii. Alternative Reasoning for Replacing PVK with PMMA Patent Owner counterargues that using PPMA in place of PVK would have been understood to “upset the hole and electron balance,” as well as “affect hole-charge recombination,” and “degrade the performance of the resulting OLED system.” Resp. 37. Petitioner responds with evidence that “it would have been a routine task for” an ordinarily skilled artisan “to optimize the composition of each component within the light-emitting layer to achieve the desired charge balance.” Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 24). Petitioner’s response brings to light a second reason why an ordinarily” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 8,723,164 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,723,164 - PTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00923 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 and 22–30 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Watanabe.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“of the related district court proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 2–9. In exercising our discretion to deny review under § 314(a), the Board may consider “events in other proceedings related to the same patent.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 20192 at 58. In doing so, the Board considers and balances several factors affecting system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). The Director has provided guidance on applying the Fintiv factors. Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner has satisfied step 1 of Advanced Bionics because Watanabe, Kishida, and Kita were previously presented to the 5 Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first para.). Consequently, we proceed to step 2 of Advanced Bionics and consider Becton, Dickenson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Factor (c) “focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing art or arguments” and informs “the petitioner’s showing under factors (e) and (f).” Id. Factor (e) considers whether the petitioner has sufficiently shown how the Office erred in its prior consideration of the prior art and factor (f) considers the extent to which the facts and evidence in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art. Becton, Dickenson, Paper 8 at 24–25.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“As noted above, the ’685 patent describes a system for digital optical image collection, processing, and organization, which applies to “any imaging system that includes interactions between optics, digital image sensors, post-capture integrated circuits and digital storage components.” Ex. 1001, 1:18–31. Artisans and inventors in such fields are not limited to electrical engineers. They include physicists and others with sufficient knowledge of the physics of optical, electronic, and opto-electronic devices. Indeed, many of the pioneering inventions needed to understand the operation of a digital camera were made by physicists, including the inventions of the transistor,7 the integrated circuit (IC),8 the digital computer,9 and the charge-coupled device (CCD).10 For at least these reasons, we find Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art to be reasonable and commensurate with the problems and solutions disclosed in the prior art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt as our own Petitioner’s description of a person skilled in the art. We further find Petitioner’s declarant, who (a) has a bachelor’s degree in physics as well as post-graduate education in physics and optics, (b) is a member of the Optical Society of America and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“vignetting” and “uses the in-camera software to identify at least one optical image aberration” (the “identifying aberration” limitation). Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s construction of “vignetting” and argues the identifying aberration limitation need not be construed because no patentability arguments rely on the precise meaning of this term. Prelim. Resp. 15–16. At this stage of the proceeding, we decline to construe either of Petitioner’s proposed terms because their precise meaning is not needed to resolve the parties’ disputes. We discuss below the meaning of other terms whose meanings are inherently disputed by the parties’ competing patentability contentions in the context of those competing contentions. slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,873,685 - Roofr Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00435 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–17 as obvious over Pershing-789 and Abhyanker; claims 9 and 14 over the Pictometry combination; and claims 1–17 over Kennedy, Abhyanker, and Bailey.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Mr. Cummings qualifies as a skilled artisan. Pet. Reply 2–7. As Petitioner notes, the ’800 patent’s computer-related features are fairly basic—i.e., “standard computer input devices, applications, and graphical user interface elements” that “would be familiar to and understood by one” with experience like Mr. Cummings’s. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001). As we explained in our Institution Decision, “[a]lthough Mr. Cummings may lack formal computer-related education, he ‘ha[s] extensive experience using software related to construction’ including ‘decades working with software related to construction modeling and estimation.’” Paper 16, 8 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 6). Mr. Cummings also “ha[s] experience collaborating with software developers to create new software in my field.” Id. In light of the ’800 patent’s basic computing features, Mr. Cummings’s experience is sufficient. In addition, we do not find it problematic that the Petition repeats certain portions of Mr. Cummings’s testimony. Though portions of the Petition may be the same as Mr. Cummings’s testimony, that does not by itself undermine the testimony’s persuasiveness or its status as evidence, nor does it mean Petitioner’s arguments are conclusory, as Patent Owner suggests. See PO Resp. 37–39.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Mr. Cummings qualifies as a skilled artisan. Pet. Reply 2–7. As Petitioner notes, the ’800 patent’s computer-related features are fairly basic—i.e., “standard computer input devices, applications, and graphical user interface elements” that “would be familiar to and understood by one” with experience like Mr. Cummings’s. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001). As we explained in our Institution Decision, “[a]lthough Mr. Cummings may lack formal computer-related education, he ‘ha[s] extensive experience using software related to construction’ including ‘decades working with software related to construction modeling and estimation.’” Paper 16, 8 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 6). Mr. Cummings also “ha[s] experience collaborating with software developers to create new software in my field.” Id. In light of the ’800 patent’s basic computing features, Mr. Cummings’s experience is sufficient. In addition, we do not find it problematic that the Petition repeats certain portions of Mr. Cummings’s testimony. Though portions of the Petition may be the same as Mr. Cummings’s testimony, that does not by itself undermine the testimony’s persuasiveness or its status as evidence, nor does it mean Petitioner’s arguments are conclusory, as Patent Owner suggests. See PO Resp. 37–39.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In an inter partes review proceeding, we construe patent claims using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 2; see generally PO. Resp. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMixed
“Moreover, Petitioner’s proposed combination is sufficient for obviousness even if we accept Patent Owner’s proposed temporal requirement. Specifically, Petitioner’s rationale for adding Abhyanker’s user inputs (i.e., “allowing a user to designate a geographic position of a roof and to subsequently confirm that the roof location is correct would promote the accuracy of the system,” Pet. 24, 67 (emphasis added, Petitioner’s emphasis omitted)), explains why one skilled in the art would have provided Abhyanker’s lock pushpin option after placing a marker. See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43, 127. Patent Owner’s argument, in contrast, assumes a skilled artisan could do no more than bodily incorporate Abhyanker’s placement and lock features without any thought as to sequence. That, however, is not the test for obviousness. See, e.g., Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (noting that “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). For these reasons, and in light of the Petition’s analysis, see Pet. 24– 25, 33–35, 67, 74, we agree with Petitioner that its proposed combination teaches “responsive to receiving the designation of the building roof structure location, providing a second computer input capable of signaling user-acceptance of the building roof structure location within the first image, wherein user-acceptance is one or more affirmative steps undertaken by the user to confirm the designation of the building roof structure location,” as claimed.6” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 10,648,800 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,648,800 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01248 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 14–21 and 23–26 are unpatentable under §103; claims 1–13 and 27–30 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish multiplexing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill and does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’653 patent and the cited prior art, we adopt it. C.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim Construction Petitioner states that “no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does seek an express construction of any claim term, and we thus conclude that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“d. Multiplexing Being “Well-Known” Petitioner additionally argues that multiplexing techniques were well- known. See Pet. 34; Pet. Reply 18. Even if that is correct, however, it is insufficient because Petitioner must show that it would have been obvious to modify Yegoshin to add multiplexing, and merely establishing that multiplexing was known in other contexts is insufficient to show how or why Yegoshin should be modified.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Patent Owner filed an opposition to the motion. See Paper 24. Patent Owner contends that the declaration is untimely and unfairly prejudicial because it circumvents our word count limitations and amounts to an additional brief because it analyzes claim construction and includes new cites to the record. See id. at 2–10. Having reviewed the parties’ positions, we grant the Motion. We note, however, that in view of the full record, and for the reasons below, our determination would not change even if we denied the motion. B.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 8,842,653 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,842,653 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01249 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 14–15, 17–21, and 27–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–13, 16, and 26 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“A. Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“agree that “Yegoshin’s phone is configured to switch between cellular and IP communication modes, and also ‘capable of taking some calls via cellular path while receiving other calls via IP path’” but that does not lead to the conclusion, or support, that “in order to receive calls on both cellular network and WLAN simultaneously or to switch between two networks, the phone includes multiplexing of the signals communicated on two network paths.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 126 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:18–22, 5:33–65), 127 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:33–65; Ex. 1006, 1:6:12, 1:54–60, 3:53–61). The declarant’s citations to the record also do not support that Yegoshin’s “phone includes multiplexing of the signals communicated on two network paths.” Ex. 1004, 3:18–22, 5:33–65; Ex. 1006, 1:6:12, 1:54–60, 3:53–61.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 9,019,946 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,019,946 - Linkedin Corporation v. Ebuddy Technologies B.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00177 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious over Odell and Daniell; claims 7–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Odell.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“(b) High- and Low-Level Networks We also determine that the evidence favors the conclusion that the” slip op. at 37
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“D. Anticipation: Odell 1. Claims 7 and 12 Claims 7 and 12 recite similar limitations, except that claim 7 recites a” slip op. at 76
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied in part and dismissed in part as moot; and” slip op. at 100
Patent outcomesUS 9,584,453 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,584,453 - Linkedin Corporation v. Ebuddy Technologies B.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00176 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as anticipated by Odell and as obvious over Odell alone or with Daniell.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“A Motion to Exclude “must identify the objections in the record in order and must explain the objections.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Here, Patent Owner never filed or served any objections to Exhibits 1021, 1027, or 1028. On that basis, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion as to those exhibits. Also, we do not rely on the content of Exhibits 1022–1026 or 1030 in reaching our decision on the patentability of the challenged claims. Thus, we dismiss as moot the Motion as to Exhibits 1022–1026 and 1030. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide,5 79–80 (Nov. 21, 2019) (“In the Board’s experience, consideration of the objected-to evidence is often unnecessary to resolve the patentability of the challenged claims, and the motion to exclude is moot.”). Even so, we note that Patent Owner’s Motion does not satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) because it does not “identify the objections in the record.”” slip op. at 112
- Skill levelDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“distinguish among business relationships between IM services, or importantly, one that is rooted in the ’395 patent. See PO Resp. 7–8; PO Sur-Reply 7–10. Rather, treating the IM services together based on common ownership would appear to contradict the ’395 patent’s describing them as distinct services. See Ex. 1001, 3:52–55; see also Ex. 1001, 8:18–32. For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Patent Owner that a “messaging service provider” as recited in the claims is the entity that provides the instant messaging service (PO Resp. 7–8), and assign little weight to Dr. Surati’s testimony on this point (Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 114–118). Instead, we find persuasive Petitioner’s proposed meaning for “messaging service provider” and underlying arguments discussed above, namely, that this term means the computer system or platform providing a distinct messaging service (and not which company at any given time might own that system or platform), and credit the testimony of Mr. Willis in this regard (see Ex. 1040 ¶ 27 (“Two different homes in two different cities and rented to two different families are not one house, even if they are owned by the same investor.”); see also Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 23–33).” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“stores the aggregated contact list in a non-transitory computer readable medium at the web server.” So, we see no reason to construe the term “contact aggregation engine” itself to require network storage. Rather, Patent Owner’s network-storage argument supports the conclusion that “contact aggregation engine” is defined by the functions expressly recited in the claim. See PO Sur-Reply 11. slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,510,395 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,510,395 - BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00631 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“petition in IPR2022-00631 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd, IPR2022-00631 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 1, 2 (petition), 4 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00631 and granted BMW’s motion for joinder. Paper 28 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). Similarly, General Motors LLC (“GM”) filed a petition in IPR2022-00641 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd., IPR2022-00641 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 2 (petition), 3 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00641 and granted GM’s motion for joinder. Paper 29 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). VW and Patent Owner then reached a settlement and this proceeding was terminated only as to VW. Paper 30 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2022). Accordingly, we refer to BMW and GM, collectively, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 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)).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it mischaracterizes Petitioner’s reliance on Torii. Petitioner does not rely on a single structure as disclosing both the claimed source electrode and conductive portions. Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,247,867 - BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2021-01321 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not proven unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 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)).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,247,867 - PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01248 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all presented grounds for claims 1–21 and 23–30, finding a reasonable likelihood of proving at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We accordingly institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 and 23–30 of the ’653 patent on all presented challenges. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). B.” slip op. at 4
- BurdenMixed
“For the reasons above, based on the present record, Petitioner’s arguments do not show adequately that Yegoshin would have been understood to have multiplexed signals, or that Bernard “includes or operates as a multiplexer for combining the data packets” (Pet. 37). Because Petitioner does not sufficiently show multiplexed signals in any of the asserted references, Petitioner does not provide enough argument and evidence that its proposed combination of Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, and Bernard would have “a single interface comprised of multiplexed signals from the plurality of wireless transmit and receive components,” as required by claim 1. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prove claim 1 unpatentable over the combination of Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, and Bernard. For the same reasons, we find that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prove dependent claims 2–13 unpatentable over the combination. However, because claim 1 will remain in the proceeding under SAS, we also provide our preliminary views on the dependent claims.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Claim Construction Petitioner states that “no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not propose an interpretation for any term but, as discussed below in Section II.D, argues that Petitioner should have disclosed and applied the claim constructions it has advanced in related litigation. At this preliminary stage, we determine that the record does not require use to resolve any claim construction dispute to decide whether or not to institute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). C.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill and does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’653 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. B.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,842,653
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.