• Unified Patents Inc. v. Velos Media, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2020 · IPR2019-00194 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 13–15, and 17 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds failed to establish the claimed scan passes or scan order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application resulting in the ’449 patent “would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of video coding.” Pet. 23–24. Patent Owner does not contest that definition of a skilled artisan or offer a different one. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the descriptions in the ’449 patent and the asserted art, and we adopt it.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Although Petitioner proposes a construction for “information indicating levels of significant coefficients” (Pet. 27), we determined in the Institution Decision that there was no need to construe the phrase. Inst. 5. Absent any indication from the parties why such a construction would impact our analysis, we reach that same conclusion here. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “the phrase “in a first scan pass” and shows the proper grammatical relationship. That limitation recites “coding information indicating levels . . . according to the scan order used for coding the information indicating significant coefficients in a second scan pass.” The phrase “in a second scan pass” serves not to frame the scan order—the scan order for coding level information must be the same as the scan order for coding significance information. Rather, “in a second scan pass” relates to the phrase “coding information”—no other understanding of “in a second scan pass” would make sense. For internal consistency, that same understanding must apply to the first limitation such that “in a first scan pass” frames the step of “coding information.” Thus, the claim language requires coding significance information in a first scan pass, and then coding level information in a second scan pass, where each scan pass uses the same scan order.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find Cheon’s disclosure regarding a purported second scan is insufficient to carry Petitioner’s burden. The primary disclosure Petitioner relies on states only that “[l]evel information of an effective coefficient . . . is encoded after the significance map is encoded.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 175. That does not expressly state that a second scan is performed to encode the level information. Petitioner is left relying on a statement by its declarant that a person of skill would have understood to perform a second scan pass when encoding the level information. Pet. 61. But Petitioner’s declarant provides no explanation and instead simply makes the conclusion. Ex. 1002 ¶ 127. We do not afford significant weight to such a conclusory statement. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). We are left with the possibility that Cheon’s paragraph 175 discloses a second scan, but that does not persuade us that Cheon makes an adequate disclosure to teach a second scan. In this regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant that skilled artisans would have understood Cheon’s paragraph 175 to teach a single scan pass. Ex. 2034 ¶¶ 158–159.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,338,449 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,338,449
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Customplay, LLC.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2020 · IPR2018-01497 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, and 19 are unpatentable on at least one §103 ground; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable over Rakib and Livesey.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Computer Engineering, or Computer Science, and at least three years of experience in the design of digital video systems. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the information and testimony presented in the Petition, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “constructions for the terms “retrieve” and “item” for its showing of the asserted obviousness of claims 14 and 19. Inst. Dec. 11–12; see also Pet. 17, 26. Therefore, we construed “retrieve” and “item” as they are defined in the Specification. Specifically, we construed “retrieve” as comprising “obtain, acquire, procure, download, transfer, extract, and to come into possession by any means or methodology.” Inst. Dec. 12; see also 2 The Petition in this proceeding was filed on August 1, 2018. Ex. 1001, 15:4–8. And we construed “item” as “(i) items, products, objects, properties, acts, or information, whether or not they offer a commercial or purchase opportunity; (ii) items, products, objects, properties, acts, or information that constitute actual or potential product placements, whether prior to or after production of the video; (iii) product placements; and (iv) items, products, objects, properties, acts, or information, that offer informational or entertainment opportunities.” Inst. Dec. 12; see also Ex. 1001, 4:48–55. For our construction for “item,” we included the Specification’s definition of “product placement,” which is “(i) items, products, objects, properties, acts, or information that offer a commercial or purchase opportunity; (ii) items, products, objects, properties, acts, or information that constitute actual or potential product placements, whether prior to or after production of the video; and (iii) product placements.” Inst. Dec. 13; see also Ex. 1001, 4:55–61. Neither party objected to our preliminary constructions of these terms. PO Resp. 6; Pet. Reply, generally. We maintain these constructions and determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “trial, we agree with Patent Owner and do not find that Rakib and Livesey teach or suggest the above limitation. Petitioner’s obviousness theory for this limitation rests on its arguments about what an ordinarily skilled artisan could have done. According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that a partial overlay could be used to display information. Then Petitioner argues what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do if the artisan decided to use a partial overlay. But Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to choose the partial overlay— the predicate act in Petitioner’s analysis. And obviousness cannot be established by merely proving what an ordinarily skilled artisan could have done. Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Bovik’s testimony that the above limitation simply arranges old elements (requests for information and pausing control instructions), with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, and yields no more than predictable results, are conclusory. Pet. 80–81; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 202–203. For that reason, we are not persuaded by that argument or that testimony.” slip op. at 69

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Third, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Rangan’s apparatus to permit requests for additional information as taught by Rakib for the following reasons: (i) Rangan discloses providing a unique customized experience for numerous users, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize this goal would be best accomplished by providing a portion of the related information and then allowing each user to decide what additional information should be disclosed; (ii) disclosing all information that users may be interested in would be onerous; (iii) Rangan suggests that the user would be able to branch to additional information after selecting the hotspot; and (iv) this modification would be a simple substitution of one known element for another known element to obtain predictable results. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 71–80. We also find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of making such a modification. Id. ¶ 80. Fourth, we do not agree with Patent Owner that this modification would impermissibly change Rangan’s principle of operation. PO Resp. 24. The proposed combination would not require that any change in the basic operation of Rangan’s system because Rangan’s system already requests information. See supra Section III.A.2.f.; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 39–40. The modification would simply involve making another request. Ex. 1102 ¶ 40. We also credit Dr. Bovik’s testimony that Rangan and Rakib do not have incompatible operating structures. Id.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,124,950 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,124,950
• Vanguard Products Group, Inc., D/B/A Vanguard Protex Global v. Invue Security Products Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2020 · IPR2019-01206 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’274 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art, including the type of problems encountered in the art and prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Considering the subject matter of the ’274 patent and the prior art of record, we agree with some aspects of Petitioner’s proposal as well as some aspects of Patent Owner’s proposal. For instance, as indicated by its title, the ’274 patent is directed to a merchandise security system with optical communication. See Ex. 1001, code (54). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would at least have experience with optical communication technology. We also agree with Patent Owner that the invention disclosed in the ’274 patent is not limited to use as a point-of-purchase anti-theft device. See Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:55–60). We disagree, however, with Patent Owner’s argument that experience with security systems is unnecessary. See id. In view of the ’274 patent and the principal prior art references in the record, which generally are directed to security systems, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience with security devices. The educational level of inventors and that of active workers in the field are also factors that may be considered. Daiichi, 501 F.3d at 1256. On the present record, we agree with Patent Owner’s more inclusive proposal regarding the educational level of a person skilled in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 8–9. review of the record, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, materials science, or some equivalent level of education, and some work experience with the design of security devices and applications using optical communication technology. We note that, even if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art in its entirety, our analysis below of Petitioner’s asserted obviousness grounds would not change and we would reach the same conclusions.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “transceiver” is relevant to this Decision. The ’274 patent states that “an optical transceiver [is] configured to transmit and receive data” and “may be used to transmit optical signals in predetermined sequences or patterns, as signals.” Ex. 1001, 1:59–60, 1:62–63, 5:34–37; see Pet. 6. Citing definitions of “optical transceiver,” “optical receiver,” “optical transmitter,” and “transceiver” from a technical dictionary, Petitioner contends that “optical transceiver” should be construed as “an optical receiver and an optical transmitter housed in a single unit with appropriate electrical and optical connectors.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002, 347, 674, 676–77, 1022–23). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “optical transceiver,” which is consistent with the term’s use in the ’274 patent and its ordinary and customary meaning in the art. No other claim terms require express construction at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Next, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner provides insufficient evidentiary support for its conclusion that Brenner’s optical waveguide is prone to signal loss that makes Brenner’s system unreliable. See Prelim. Resp. 15. In asserting that optical waveguides subjected to bending and winding are prone to signal loss, Petitioner cites only dictionary definitions of “loss,” “curvature loss,” and “microbend loss” and the Declaration of Mr. Figh. Pet. 19–20, 36 (citing Ex. 1002, 196, 535–36, 546, 576; Ex. 1007 ¶ 44). Mr. Figh, in turn, relies solely on the same definitions from the same dictionary. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 44, 66. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Figh, however, shows what effect, if any, a curvature loss or microbend loss would have on the optical waveguide used in Brenner’s securing tether. See Pet. 19–21, 36–37; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 44, 66. Furthermore, the Petition fails to explain adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a curvature loss or microbend loss in Brenner’s device would result in signal loss sufficient to adversely affect the reliability of communications between Brenner’s transceivers. See Pet. 21, 36–37 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 45, 67). Although Petitioner cites Mr. Figh’s Declaration for support, his testimony on this point is entitled to little or no weight because he does not identify any evidence in the record to support his conclusory statements, which are essentially the same as those in the Petition. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 45, 67; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). have been motivated to improve the reliability of Brenner’s security device by eliminating the optical waveguide in the securing tether and moving the optical transceiver from the base unit to the proximal end of the securing tether to communicate directly with the transceiver in Brenner’s sensor unit. Pet. 37; see id. at 21–22. But without a sufficient showing in the Petition that a person of ordinary skill would have considered Brenner’s device as having reliability issues, there is no valid basis underlying Petitioner’s proposed motivation for modifying Brenner in view of the teachings of Vogt and Chapman. Thus, Petitioner fails to provide sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Brenner’s system as proposed and combining the teachings of the references in the manner asserted.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,818,274
• Apple Inc. v. Red.Com, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2019-01064 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 were unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to institute an inter partes review only if the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges to the ’299 Patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied. A.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had (1) “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or equivalent training”; (2) “approximately three years of experience in designing and/or manufacturing video capture, processing, and display systems”; and (3) “experience in data compression.” Pet. 6. At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention or propose its own formulation of the relevant level of ordinary skill. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description, which we determine to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the specification’s definition is critical to the proper construction of this term. Petitioner’s proposed construction, however, differs significantly from the definition provided in the specification. First, Petitioner’s construction refers to “sets of data” that are compared for visual similarity, but it does not reflect the specification’s requirement for comparison “side by side” specifically with “original (never compressed) image data.” See Ex. 1001, 9:55–60. Second, Petitioner’s construction makes no mention of the specification’s requirement that the comparison be made based on display “on the same display device.” See id. Third, Petitioner’s construction looks to whether the data sets are “substantially visually similar,” but does not explain how or why that benchmark differs from the specification’s requirement that a person of ordinary skill “would not be able to determine which image is the original with a reasonable degree of accuracy, based only on a visual inspection of the images.” See id. Although the claim term at issue is “substantially visually lossless” whereas the specification defines “visually lossless,” Petitioner does not indicate that they should be considered differently or explain its deviations from the specification’s definition. Nor do we discern any basis to deviate from that definition to the extent required to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction. Thus, we determine Petitioner’s construction to be incomplete and insufficiently supported in light of the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–16. Although Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction at this time, Petitioner is required to present a full explanation of its position and how the relevant evidence and governing law support its proposed construction, as part of its overall burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(3). We determine the Petition did not adequately do so. Consequently, based on the available evidence and for purposes of this Decision, we construe “substantially visually lossless” as “substantially indistinguishable from the original (never compressed) image, to a reasonable degree of accuracy, when compared side by side on the same display device by a person of ordinary skill, based only on a visual inspection of the images,” consistent with the definition provided in the specification of the ’299 Patent. C.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “As Patent Owner notes, however, Mølgaard actually urges the use of near-lossless compression. Prelim. Resp. 70–71. For example, Mølgaard indicates that “[i]n the present invention, near-lossless compression is implemented using a gamma function to provide a compression that is visually lossless.” Ex. 1006, 2:62–64 (emphases added). In other words, Mølgaard teaches that using near-lossless techniques (rather than truly lossless techniques) is sufficient to produce “visually lossless” images. See id. Petitioner does not explain adequately why a skilled artisan nonetheless would have been motivated to combine Mølgaard with Chui for its truly lossless Huffman compression when Mølgaard teaches that its near-lossless technique was sufficient. See Pet. 42–43. Petitioner notes (Pet. 39) that Mølgaard states, “[t]he next stage in the algorithm is an optional lossy bit reduction stage used to adjust the compression ratio, the stage is bypassed if lossless compression is desired.” Ex. 1006, 10:32–34 (emphasis added). At most, however, this indicates that using lossless compression was known at the time of Mølgaard, which is undisputed. Mølgaard proceeds to describe how “[t]he use of a gamma-function [in the bit reduction stage] to implement a near-lossless data reduction yields a very high quality image” with image artifacts that are “simple quantization errors” that “can easily be removed,” which is “a huge advantage of the present invention.” Id. at 10:56–11:15; see also id. at 15:20–25 (“Using the near-lossless compression setting, a typical high-quality image will be compressed to 1/8th . . . . The image quality achieved is superior . . . as visual image artifacts are totally absent . . . .”). Petitioner does not address Mølgaard’s teachings regarding near-lossless compression at all; in fact, Petitioner appears to treat them as teachings of lossless compression. See Pet. 42–43. We are not persuaded Petitioner explained adequately why a person of ordinary skill, based primarily on the teachings of Mølgaard (as Petitioner urges), would have been motivated to replace its near-lossless technique with Chui’s lossless Huffman technique.7” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,230,299
• Roland Corporation v. Inmusic Brands, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2018 · IPR2018-00335 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution, finding no overlooked or misapprehended basis to show the claimed acoustic noise reducing cavity in the cited references or their combination.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified (id.).” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it. Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates” (In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). “[A]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the [single prior art] reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation.” Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Cont'l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Rather, “[t]he inherent result must inevitably result from the disclosed steps....” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012) slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “As set forth above, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Puschner anticipated an acoustic noise reducing cavity. Moreover, as we stated in our Decision, Petitioner did not “identify where Yoshino ’117, directed to an ‘electronic percussion instrument and vibration detection apparatus,’ teaches or suggests the claimed ‘acoustic noise reducing cavity’” (Dec. 21). Petitioner provided no cites to Yoshino ’117 to support its assertion that Yoshino ’117 teaches “an acoustic noise reducing cavity in an electronic drum” in either the Petition or the Declaration of Dr. Paradiso with respect to this asserted ground (Pet. 19–20; Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). We also determined Petitioner had not proffered persuasive argument as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combined the teachings (Dec. 21). Rather, Petitioner merely proffered the conclusory statement that “it would have been obvious” because of “a desire to reduce acoustic sound . . .” (Pet. 19–20) –– i.e., it would have been obvious to have the recited feature. Moreover, we determined Petitioner had not “explained how the teachings of Puschner’s and Yoshino ’117’s different structures would have been combined to teach the invention,” as recited in claim 15 (Dec. 21). Petitioner has not identified any matter that the Board misapprehended or overlooked, or identified where each matter was previously addressed, in the relevant portions of the Petition or cited evidence. Petitioner did not fully address how the references taught the limitation or the reasons for combining the teachings.” slip op. at 6

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,424,827
• General Electric Co. v. University Of Virginia Patent FoundationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00358 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 141–146, 148, 151, 152, 159, 160, 242–246, 248, and 251 are unpatentable as anticipated; claims 141–152, 159, 160, and 242–251 are also unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “address the applicable burdens of proof on the parties. As an initial matter, the overall burden of persuasion of proving unpatentability on the asserted grounds based on Mugler 2000 lies with GE, and that burden never shifts. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, GE bears the burden to establish that Mugler 2000 qualifies as prior art. The burden of production, however, may shift between the parties. See Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1375–76; Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80. Here, GE satisfied the initial burden of production by asserting that Mugler 2000 is § 102(a) prior art, and presenting evidence that it was published and publicly available before the priority date of the ’644 Patent.9 See Pet. 11. The burden of production then shifted to UVAPF, and UVAPF met that burden by producing evidence to demonstrate that the relevant content of Mugler 2000 was solely the work of the inventors of the ’644 Patent, i.e., the declarations of Dr. Mugler and Dr. Kiefer.10 See PO Resp. 18–20; Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1376 (“[T]he shifting of the burden of production is warranted [when] the patentee affirmatively seeks to establish a proposition not relied on by the patent challenger and not a necessary predicate for the unpatentability claim asserted.”). Consequently, the burden returned to GE to prove that the evidence of record does not establish that Mugler 2000 was solely the work of the named inventors. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. GE did not carry this burden.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “An inventor’s own work is not prior art under § 102(a). See Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Katz, 687 F.2d at 454. In determining whether a reference is the work of the named inventor(s), the relevant inquiry is whether the relevant content of the reference—such as “the methods, detailed results, statistical analysis and discussion,” or “the design, trial, and analysis of results”—was solely the work of the inventor(s). See Allergan, 754 F.3d at 969. For example, an article may be solely the work of an inventor if the remaining co-authors were merely students performing tasks under the inventor’s direction and supervision. See Katz, 687 F.2d at 455–56. Before turning to the evidence to apply these precepts, we first address the applicable burdens of proof on the parties. As an initial matter, the overall burden of persuasion of proving unpatentability on the asserted grounds based on Mugler 2000 lies with GE, and that burden never shifts. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, GE bears the burden to establish that Mugler 2000 qualifies as prior art. The burden of production, however, may shift between the parties. See Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1375–76; Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Resp. 21–59. More specifically, UVAPF argues the ’182 Application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims such that they are entitled to the priority date of the ’182 Application, i.e., December 21, 2000. Id. Based on the full record, however, the challenged claims have not been shown to have sufficient support in the written description of the ’182 Application and, thus, priority has not been established earlier than December 21, 2001. As with § 102(a), GE bears the burden to prove that Mugler is prior art under § 102(b) as part of its overall burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. GE also bears the initial burden of production, but satisfied that burden by asserting that Mugler 2000 is prior art under § 102(b). See id. at 1379. The burden then shifted to UVAPF to produce evidence that the challenged claims of the ’644 Patent are entitled to an earlier priority date. See id. at 1380. UVAPF met that burden by producing arguments and evidence to attempt to prove that the disclosure of the ’182 Application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. See PO Resp. 22–59. Thus, the burden shifted back to GE to prove that the ’182 Application does not support the claims. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. GE met that burden successfully, as explained below. For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,644 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• Qiagen Inc. v. Oxford Immunotec Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · IPR2016-01575 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–9 unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to institute an inter partes review only if the information presented in the Petition shows “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; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4(a), 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, pursuant to § 314, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’821 Patent, and the Petition is denied. A.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “structurally related to the physical substrate holding the printed matter, may not be given patentable weight. In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[A] limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information.” Id. If determined to claim printed matter, the limitation is nonetheless given patentable weight “if the claimed informational content has a functional or structural relation to the substrate.” Id. at 851. According to Petitioner, the “CD8+ epitope” limitation claims printed matter because it is merely the content of information, namely “the string of amino acids in a subfragment of ESAT-6 that includes the amino acids that constitute a CD8+ epitope.” Pet. 15. Petitioner likens the “CD8+ epitope” to an “instruction limitation” that merely “informs” about the epitope in ESAT-6. Id. (citing In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We disagree. In Kao, the relevant limitation claimed “providing information” regarding a particular biological correlation, which the Federal Circuit concluded had no functional relationship to the following step of “providing” a particular drug treatment. Kao, 639 F.3d at 1072–73. Here, the relevant limitation is “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope.” The epitope is not “printed” onto a physical substrate (i.e., the peptide); it is part of the substrate—the epitope is a sequence of amino acids that is recognized by a CD8+ T cell, and those amino acids are part of the amino acids that make up the peptide itself. Moreover, the epitope does not merely inform someone of purely informational content. Rather, the epitope has a structural and functional relationship to the claims and to the substrate (i.e., the peptide subfragments). For example, claim 1 recites, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope” (emphasis added). The claim further recites, “measuring secretion of a cytokine from said T cells” to determine “whether said T cells are activated by said peptide subfragment.” The specification describes the activation of CD8+ T cells by peptide subfragments that are CD8+ epitopes. See Ex. 1001, 2:30–45. Thus, the CD8+ epitopes are involved in the activation of T cells, which yields immunogenicity (i.e., generation of an immune system response) in the form of cytokine secretion, which is measured as part of the claimed method. The CD8+ epitope limitation is more akin to the attribute data object (ADO) limitations in In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1994), where the recited ADOs were processed by a computer and affected how data was stored and organized in a memory. Thus, the CD8+ epitope limitation does not constitute printed matter with no patentable weight. See DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 851. B.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Pet. 22–34. The Petition does not, however, demonstrate sufficiently that Brandt-1996 discloses, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” which is recited in both independent claims. Brandt-1996 discloses the results of a study in which murine (i.e., mouse) T cells were exposed to whole ESAT-6 protein, as well as nine subfragments of ESAT-6. Ex. 1010, 3528, Fig. 3. Whole ESAT-6 protein, as well as two of the subfragments, yielded a response from the T cells in the form of significant IFN-γ release. See id. at 3529–31, Figs. 2, 4. Petitioner argues that Brandt-1996 discloses exposing T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 because it reports a positive response (i.e., heightened IFN-γ release) to the “p1-20” peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 (also referred to as the “p1” peptide). Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1010, 3531, Table 2). The Petition does not explain, however, why exposing the mice in Brandt-1996 to the “p1-20” peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 necessarily exposed the T cells to an immunogenic amount of peptide containing a CD8+ epitope. Petitioner’s assertion that a CD8+ epitope is not required by the claims is based on its arguments regarding printed matter, which are unpersuasive as discussed above. Alternatively, Petitioner argues that whole ESAT-6 protein contains CD8+ epitopes and, thus, the “ESAT-6 fragments disclosed in Brandt-1996 necessarily constitute ESAT-6 subfragments that contain a CD8+ epitope.” Pet. 23. Only two of the subfragments tested in Brandt-1996 were immunogenic, however, as required by the challenged claims. See Ex. 1010, Fig. 4 (showing responses to the “p1” (amino acids 1-20) and “p6” (amino acids 51-70) subfragments). Petitioner asserts that amino acids 15–29 and 61–82 correspond to murine CD8+ epitopes, but neither of them correspond to the immunogenic subfragments disclosed in Brandt-1996. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1008, 3348 (“Bennekov-2006”)). Although Petitioner also asserts that ESAT-6 contains human and bovine CD8+ epitopes (id.), Brandt-1996 only tested mice and, thus, does not disclose immunogenicity for these epitopes specific to other species. Finally, Petitioner argues Brandt-1996 shows that whole ESAT-6 protein is immunogenic, which inherently discloses an immunogenic amount of subfragments containing CD8+ epitopes because ESAT-6 protein necessarily is processed into subfragments. Pet. 24. As Patent Owner argues, however, the record indicates that exposure to ESAT-6 protein does not necessarily produce a CD8+ response, particularly when a non-viral vector is used. See Prelim. Resp. 55–57. For example, Bennekov-2006 (cited by Petitioner as disclosing murine CD8+ epitopes) reports a response from CD8+ T cells of mice exposed to ESAT-6 protein via an adenovirus vector, but no significant CD8+ response when a liposome vector was used. See Ex. 1008, 3348, Fig. 2. It is undisputed that the Brandt-1996 study did not use a viral vector. Despite citing Bennekov-2006 to support its inherency arguments, Petitioner does not address or explain these aspects of Bennekov-2006, or their bearing on the disclosures of Brandt-1996. For the above reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient information showing that Brandt-1996 discloses, explicitly or inherently, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” as required by the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to anticipation by Brandt-1996. D.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Finally, Petitioner argues Brandt-1996 shows that whole ESAT-6 protein is immunogenic, which inherently discloses an immunogenic amount of subfragments containing CD8+ epitopes because ESAT-6 protein necessarily is processed into subfragments. Pet. 24. As Patent Owner argues, however, the record indicates that exposure to ESAT-6 protein does not necessarily produce a CD8+ response, particularly when a non-viral vector is used. See Prelim. Resp. 55–57. For example, Bennekov-2006 (cited by Petitioner as disclosing murine CD8+ epitopes) reports a response from CD8+ T cells of mice exposed to ESAT-6 protein via an adenovirus vector, but no significant CD8+ response when a liposome vector was used. See Ex. 1008, 3348, Fig. 2. It is undisputed that the Brandt-1996 study did not use a viral vector. Despite citing Bennekov-2006 to support its inherency arguments, Petitioner does not address or explain these aspects of Bennekov-2006, or their bearing on the disclosures of Brandt-1996. For the above reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient information showing that Brandt-1996 discloses, explicitly or inherently, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” as required by the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to anticipation by Brandt-1996. D.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,617,821
• Qiagen Inc. v. Oxford Immunotec Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2017 · IPR2016-01543 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–20 unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to institute an inter partes review only if the information presented in the Petition shows “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; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4(a), 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, pursuant to § 314, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’902 Patent, and the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “of PPD with peptides, Vordermeier undermines Petitioner’s asserted reasoning to combine the asserted references. Although Vordermeier suggests replacing PPD with “recombinant proteins or synthetic peptides,” only proteins or peptides that are “specific and sensitive” are recommended. Ex. 1015, 663s. In addressing “peptide-based reagents” in particular, Vordermeier describes as “encouraging” only mycobacterial epitopes that “are recognized in a genetically permissive way.” Id. As Patent Owner notes (Prelim. Resp. 42–43), Vordermeier distinguishes “permissive” recognition from “restricted” recognition—“restricted” recognition is defined as “recognized . . . in the context of only one or two MHC class II alleles,” whereas “permissive” recognition exhibits broader recognition (i.e., with respect to more than two MHC genetic types). See Ex. 1015, 658s. Thus, Vordermeier supplies a reason to combine diagnostic assays with permissively-recognized proteins and peptides, but not those exhibiting only restricted recognition. Based on Vordermeier, both of the ESAT-6 peptides that yielded recognition responses in Brandt, including the “p1” peptide, appear to demonstrate restricted recognition—i.e., a recognition response was elicited in only two MHC haplotypes. See Ex. 1010, 3531, Fig. 4. Thus, to the extent an artisan would have been motivated to replace the ESAT-6 protein in the Pollock assay with an ESAT-6 peptide, Vordermeier does not support Petitioner’s reasoning that the artisan would have selected the peptides identified in Brandt. Although Dr. Ernst concluded in his declaration that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Pollock’s assay with the “p1-15” peptide from Brandt, he does not address Vordermeier’s distinction between permissive and restricted epitopes, or whether the peptides in Brandt were permissive or restricted. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 57–58.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “recognition responses in Brandt, including the “p1” peptide, appear to demonstrate restricted recognition—i.e., a recognition response was elicited in only two MHC haplotypes. See Ex. 1010, 3531, Fig. 4. Thus, to the extent an artisan would have been motivated to replace the ESAT-6 protein in the Pollock assay with an ESAT-6 peptide, Vordermeier does not support Petitioner’s reasoning that the artisan would have selected the peptides identified in Brandt. Although Dr. Ernst concluded in his declaration that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Pollock’s assay with the “p1-15” peptide from Brandt, he does not address Vordermeier’s distinction between permissive and restricted epitopes, or whether the peptides in Brandt were permissive or restricted. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 57–58. Finally, the sole support for Petitioner’s assertion that peptides offer the advantages of “lower production costs, easier standardization, and lack of any risk of infection or immunotoxicity” is Dr. Ernst’s testimony. Pet. 29. His testimony on this point, however, is conclusory and does not present any supporting facts or data. Ex. 1004 ¶ 58. Thus, this testimony is entitled to little or no weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 10

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,005,902
• Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01664 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 8–12 and 18–22 not shown unpatentable as obvious over Dulin, Yamaura, Zhuang, and Hwang because the combination did not teach the entire broadcast channel within the core-band.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Upon further review of the ’431 patent, particularly in view of Patent Owner’s arguments supported by Dr. Zeger’s testimony discussed above, we are persuaded that our preliminary partial construction was unreasonably broad to the extent that construction indicated the transmitting a broadcast channel limitation would be met by the transmission of a broadcast channel that is only partially within the core-band. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that to show that the transmitting “a broadcast channel in an” OFDMA core-band limitation is met, Petitioner must demonstrate that the prior art teaches or suggests transmitting a broadcast channel, wherein the entire channel is contained within the core-band.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “as calling signals) in a “broadcast burst” (including Yamaura’s BCH and FCH) using only a subset of the subcarriers near the center of the bandwidth that makes up the channel. Pet. 27–29, 36–37; PO Resp. 30; Ex. 1003, 1:65–67, 6:5–8, 20:65–67, 21:30–32, 24:6–14; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 65–68. There is some ambiguity, however, regarding whether Yamaura transmits signals outside of its narrow band during the time slots assigned to the alleged broadcast channels BCH and FCH (e.g., SC1 and SC2 as depicted in Figure 17 of Yamaura). See Ex. 1003, 21:1–43, Fig. 17. After reviewing the relevant portions of Yamaura, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Yamaura transmits signals only in its narrow band during the BCH and FCH time slots for the reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Petitioner argues there are no signals other than calling signals sent during BCH and FCH because “the whole broadcast burst is part of the calling signal.” Tr. 102:17–103:2. However, upon review of the complete record and in the context of Yamaura’s entire disclosure, we credit Dr. Haas’s testimony that Yamaura’s repeated references to calling signals being specific control signals or part of the control signals indicates that Yamaura transmits other control signals during the BCH and FCH time slots. PO Resp. 30–31; Ex. 2001 ¶ 107.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,787,431 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,787,431
• Microsoft Corp. v. Windy City Innovations LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2016 · IPR2016-01138 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–49, 54–57, and 59–63 would have been obvious over Brown and Tang.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “alternatives” to allow members in “at least one group . . . [to] send communications and receive communications . . . wherein at least some of the communications are received in real time via the Internet network.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:59–67 (emphases added). Here, “wherein at least some of the communications are received in real time” refers to the communications sent and received by members of “at least one group.” Claim 1 is clear that both client software alternatives must “allow at least some of the participator computers to form at least one group in which members can send communications and receive communications.” Thus, the communications in a group pursuant to each of the client software alternatives must include real-time communications.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable

    “alternatives” to allow members in “at least one group . . . [to] send communications and receive communications . . . wherein at least some of the communications are received in real time via the Internet network.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:59–67 (emphases added). Here, “wherein at least some of the communications are received in real time” refers to the communications sent and received by members of “at least one group.” Claim 1 is clear that both client software alternatives must “allow at least some of the participator computers to form at least one group in which members can send communications and receive communications.” Thus, the communications in a group pursuant to each of the client software alternatives must include real-time communications.” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,473,552

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.