• Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00480 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–11, 19–21, and 23–25 were obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “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.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had (i) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject and two to three years of experience in the design and architecture of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices, or (ii) an advanced degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject and one year of post-graduate research or work experience in the field. Ex. 1003, ¶102. A POSITA would have been familiar with the structural hardware aspects of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices as well as designs of user interfaces employed and displayed by computer operating systems and their organization of content and functionality. Id. Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 17. For this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in both the prior art and the ’229 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “For this decision, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analysis below and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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)).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Lane’s accelerometer provides information only on the “spatial orientation” of the first module (keyboard) or second module (screen). Ex. 1005, 5:23–6:6. “Spatial orientation,” as used in Lane, refers to the orientation of the first or second module relative to the earth’s gravity because Lane teaches that its accelerometer uses a “movable conductor” that “responds via gravitational forces” to reorientation. Id. at 5:25–31. Lane does not teach using an accelerometer to determine the orientation of the first and second modules relative to each other, and Petitioner does not suggest that Lane could be modified to determine the orientation of the first and second modules relative to each other. Rather, Petitioner argues that, for example, a determination that the keyboard is “facing upward but at a diagonal angle” (relative to the earth’s gravity) would be indicative of “easel mode.” Pet. 30. The spatial orientation of Lane’s keyboard or screen relative to the earth’s gravity, however, does not reliably9 indicate the device’s current display mode because, at any given moment, the Lane device could be held at different angles such that orientation relative to gravity does not correlate with the display mode. For example, Lane Figure 13 teaches that its keyboard could be at an angle (relative to earth’s gravity) while in laptop mode. Ex. 1005, Fig. 5; Prelim. Resp. 41–42. We reproduce Lane Figure 13 as annotated by Patent Owner below.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,563,229
• Asustek Computer Inc. / Asus Global Pte. Ltd. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00532 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–10 and 23 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would replace Lane’s hinge with Misawa’s single-pivot hinge.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “defines a single longitudinal axis running along an interface between the display component and the base” where “the display component and the base are rotatable about the single longitudinal axis.” Ex. 1001, 17:15–21 (the “single axis limitation”). In each of its seven grounds, Petitioner asserts that this claim limitation would have been obvious because “a POSA would have been motivated and able to adapt the portable computer 10 of Lane to use a single-pivot hinge like the hinge 20 taught in Misawa.” Pet. 29; see also id. at 32 (“In the portable computer 10 of Lane modified to implement a singlepivot hinge like the hinge 20 of Misawa, the hinge would define a ‘single longitudinal axis.’”). Our decision turns on whether Petitioner has carried its burden to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the POSA would have been motivated to use a single-pivot hinge, like that disclosed in Misawa, in Lane’s computer, as proposed in the Petition. For the reasons discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not carried its burden. slip op. at 11

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

    “Having determined that Petitioner’s proposed modification provides a modest benefit, we now consider whether such modification has any drawbacks. Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that, in an obviousness inquiry, “[t]he benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Here, by Petitioner’s own admission, modifying Lane’s hinge in the manner Petitioner proposes comes at the expense of the hinge’s ability to rotate through a full 360°, which allows Lane’s computer to function as a tablet. Pet. 17 (explaining that Misawa’s single axis hinge “can open beyond the stated 300° (but less than 360°)”), 29 (explaining that a dual-pivot hinge is “unnecessary except to allow the display component to rotate far enough to fold flat against the bottom of the base to deploy the portable computer in tablet mode”); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 110 (testimony of Dr. Wolfe echoing statement in the Petition that Misawa’s hinge cannot rotate through the full 360°), 114 (testimony of Dr. Wolf explaining that “the use of a dualpivot hinge would make it easier to design a portable computer having a display that can rotate far enough to fold flat against the bottom of the base to deploy the portable computer in a tablet mode”); Ex. 1017, 3:5–14 (Lane, teaching that allowing 360° of rotation allows a laptop computer to function as a “pen-based computing tablet”).” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “motivated to replace Lane’s hinge with a single axis hinge because a single axis hinge is less expensive and more reliable than Lane’s biaxial decouplable hinge. Pet 29; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 113, 114, 131 (testimony of Dr. Wolfe to the same effect). Patent Owner argues this proffered motivation is supported only by the conclusory testimony of Dr. Wolfe. Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owner also argues that neither Petitioner nor Dr. Wolfe attempts to explain or quantify just how much of a benefit using a simpler hinge provides. Id. We agree that Dr. Wolfe’s testimony on this point is somewhat conclusory. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 113, 114, 131 (citing only limited supporting evidence). Nonetheless, we give Dr. Wolfe’s testimony some weight because it is consistent with the notion that a simpler device with fewer moving parts is likely to be somewhat less expensive and more reliable than a more complicated device. See Ex. 1016 ¶ 9 (prior art reference cited by Dr. Wolfe (Misawa), teaching that the mechanism of a hinge having a biaxial structure is “likely to be biaxial decouplable hinge with Misawa’s single axial hinge would provide a modest benefit.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’688 Patent (“POSA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject, and two to three years of experience in the design and architecture of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices. Alternatively, a POSA would have had an advanced degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject and one year of post-graduate research or work experience in the design and architecture of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices. A POSA would have been familiar with the structural hardware aspects of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices, as well as designs of user interfaces employed and displayed by computer operating POSA could have acquired similar skills and knowledge by other means. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 15). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s identification of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary skill is consistent with the subject matter of the ’688 patent and with the prior art of record, we apply it for purposes of this decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,289,688
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14

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

    “3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46

  • ExcludeOther

    “We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00073 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under §103: the Board found the asserted combinations taught the limitations, with motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The claim language, “forming” an “adhesion layer on a back surface,” suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of the claims of the ʼ879 patent does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a preformed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 21–23 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’879 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’879 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Mostafazadeh, could overflow.” PO Resp. 41, 42 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 121). According to Patent Owner, the downward pressure during mounting “could cause adhesive to squeeze out.” Id. at 41. We find that Patent Owner’s argument and the corresponding testimony of Mr. Elenius are speculative and do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness. The overflow issue was recognized and addressed by Mostafazadeh. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Mostafazadeh provides explicitly that its adhesive layer “covers an entire mounting surface 190 of the selected integrated circuit dies 182 and does not extend beyond a boundary of the mounting surface 190.” Ex. 1003, 10:6–9 (emphasis added). Additionally, Mostafazadeh teaches that when “the adhesive layer is rolled on, it is exactly the same size as the mounting surface and is quite even. Thus, when the die is attached to its supporting surface the adhesive does not extend beyond the mounting surface of the die.” Id. at 9:15–18. Further, Mostafazadeh teaches that its process avoids the adhesive jutting around the edges of the die. Id. at 2:26–28. These teachings support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully applying Mostafazadeh’s die attachment method to Ball’s multichip device while avoiding adhesive overflow. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination would fail” slip op. at 40

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

    “preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond connections with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 25–28. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,352,879 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,352,879
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01098 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12, finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis based on the schedule in the district court’s docket control order. Ex. 2007. The fact that the time-to-trial statistics cited by Petitioner predict that a trial in May 2024 (Pet. 89), a date even earlier than the trial date set in the court’s docket control order, confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that diligence in filing the Petition “in advance of the one-year bar date and within four months of PO’s infringement contentions in the Texas Litigation” should weigh in favor of institution. Pet. 89. As the Texas Litigation is scheduled to go to trial in August 2024, approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

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

    “Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinarily skilled artisan”) as one having “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker (“Baker Decl.”) ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further states that slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,462,942
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2023-01099 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 21–26 because the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “It strikes us as inefficient to conduct, in parallel with the Texas Litigation, numerous inter partes reviews of the same seven patents. This is particularly the case here where the best available evidence indicates that the Texas Litigation will go to trial approximately six months prior to when a final written decision would be entered if inter partes review were to be instituted. Thus, this additional reason weighs in favor of discretionary denial. G. Fintiv Conclusion As a whole, the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of discretionary denial of the Petition, with factor 1 being neutral, factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 weighing in favor of discretionary denial and factor 4 weighing slightly against it. However, we “will not deny institution based on Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., No. IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“CommScope”). Thus, we now consider the merits of the Petition under this higher standard.” slip op. at 16

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

    “III. ANALYSIS UNDER COMPELLING MERITS STANDARD “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” Commscope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Put another way, the compelling merits standard is satisfied “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). For the reasons explained below, the Petition fails to meet this standard.” slip op. at 17

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

    “The Petition’s reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have made the proposed modification, i.e., “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices” (Pet. 20), is not persuasive. Rather, it appears, based on the record presented, that the proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (A combination of references is “not a proper ground for rejection” where it “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown [in the prior art] as well as a change in the basic principles under which [the prior art] construction was designed to operate.”); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reversing BPAI decision affirming obviousness rejection where a proposed modification to the prior art would have “rendered [it] inoperable for its intended purpose”). For these reasons, the Petition does not present “compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Commscope at 4.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot reached

    “The Petition’s reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have made the proposed modification, i.e., “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices” (Pet. 20), is not persuasive. Rather, it appears, based on the record presented, that the proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (A combination of references is “not a proper ground for rejection” where it “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown [in the prior art] as well as a change in the basic principles under which [the prior art] construction was designed to operate.”); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reversing BPAI decision affirming obviousness rejection where a proposed modification to the prior art would have “rendered [it] inoperable for its intended purpose”). For these reasons, the Petition does not present “compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Commscope at 4.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,462,942
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2023-01096 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 20–23 and 30 because the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition lacked a compelling unpatentability challenge.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “NHK applies to the situation where the district court has set a trial date to occur earlier than the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision in an instituted proceeding. In a case where, in contrast to the facts present in NHK, the district court has set a trial date after the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision in an instituted proceeding, the Board may be less likely to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on district court trial timing depending on other factors as set forth below. Fintiv at 3. The instant situation is the former one described above by Fintiv and to which “NHK applies.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “Here, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “modif[ied] the Okada system to use ‘a receiver coil which has a substantially planar shape and is located parallel to a surface of the portable device’ (and complimented such a design with corresponding planar primary coil).” Pet. 21 (quoting claim 20). Petitioner states that the skilled artisan would have done so “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶135). The cited declaration testimony repeats this statement and adds that the modification could reduce size and/or weight of a device and, due to the “close proximity of coupling,” could improve power transmission efficiency, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time. Ex. 1002 ¶135.” slip op. at 22

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

    “the Petition, with factor 1 being neutral, factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 weighing in favor of discretionary denial and factor 4 weighing slightly against it. However, we “will not deny institution based on Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., No. IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“CommScope”). Thus, we now consider the merits of the Petition under this higher standard. III. ANALYSIS UNDER COMPELLING MERITS STANDARD “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” CommScope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Put another way, the compelling merits standard is satisfied “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). For the reasons explained below, the Petition fails to meet this standard.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the ’371 patent and the asserted prior art, and because there is no argument to the contrary at this stage of the proceeding, we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,316,371
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01087 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 27 would have been obvious over Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Harmonic Inc., 815 F.3d at 1363; 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). 2. Conclusion Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not presented adequate reasoning to show a reasonable likelihood that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Nakamura with the teachings of Odendaal in the manner claimed. Having considered all of the arguments and evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of that it will prevail in establishing that claims 1 and 27 would have been obvious over the combination of Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon. IV. CONCLUSION On this preliminary record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the ground advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 24

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

    “On the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that the POSA would have been motivated to modify Nakamura to include Odendaal’s spiral coils in place of Nakamura’s multiple winding sections wound around a ferrite core. As discussed above, the configuration of multiple winding sections wound around a common ferrite core allows Nakamura’s system to provide multiple different power levels and to align charging and receiving equipment for optimal transmission. The Petition asserts that “the Nakamura-Odendaal system/device [would] include features and perform functionalities like those described by Nakamura.” Pet. 29. But the Petition does not explain how it proposes to obtain multiple power level functionality using Odendaal’s simple untapped planar coils. Nor does the Petition explain how it proposes to preserve Nakamura’s alignment functionality using Odendaal’s untapped planar coils. See 8 Odendaal also discloses bi-filar and multi-filar spirals (id. at 2:51–55; Fig 1B) but Petitioner does not rely on those disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–77; 129–134 (discussing the disclosures of Odendaal relied upon for obviousness without discussing bi-filar and multi-filar spirals)). In addition, as Patent Owner explains (Prelim. Resp. 47–48), Odendaal does not describe these bi- and multi-filar spirals as having the ability to act separately. Rather, Odendaal teaches that the spirals are placed on top of each other and separated by a dielectric film that forms a capacitor. Ex. 1008, 3:32–40. Thus, Odendaal’s bi- and multi-filar spirals would act like a single coil. Id.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “have known how to configure the modified system/device such that it operated as intended consistent with Nakamura’s teachings/designs.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 141). But Petitioner and Dr. Baker never explain what the combined system would look like or how it would work. Petitioner’s omission to address how its combined system would work is illustrated in how it addresses the claim requirement that a magnetic field is received “in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the receiver coil.” Ex. 1001, 27:17–18 (claim limitation reciting “the receiver coil has a generally planar shape so that a magnetic field received in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the receiver coil is used to inductively generate a current in the receiver coil,”); 30:15–18 (same). To address this requirement, Petitioner relies not on a discussion of how the magnetic field in the proposed combined system of Nakamura and Odendaal would work (i.e., in the planar coil configuration), but on the magnetic field generated by Nakamura’s multi-section winding and ferrite core – i.e., the very winding it proposes to replace with Odendaal’s planar coils. Pet. 19–20. The significant differences between Nakamura’s multiple winding sections and Odendaal’s simple planar coil make it difficult to discern, on this record, how Odendaal’s coils would be incorporated in Nakamura’s 9 To the extent Petitioner contends that the combined Nakamura/Odendaal system would lack these functionalities, it undermines the POSA’s motivation to use planar coils in Nakamura’s system. 21 system without compromising functionality.10 Absent further explanation as to how the combined system of Nakamura and Odendaal would preserve Nakamura’s functionality, we give little weight to Dr. Baker’s conclusory testimony that the POSA would have known how to do so. Ex. 1002 ¶ 141; 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 10 Petitioner extensively relies on internal cross-references in both the Petition and in Dr. Baker’s Declaration. For example, paragraph 141 of Dr. Baker’s Declaration, refers to “my analysis and discussions above in this section,” “my analysis and discussions in Sections IX.A.1(a)-1(b),” and “my analysis and discussions in Sections VIII.A-B, IX.A.1(a)-(b).” As another example, paragraph 140 of Dr. Baker’s Declaration refers to “my analysis and discussions above in this section,” “my analysis and discussions above regarding state of art disclosures such as those in Exs. 1006–1007, 1009– 1011, 1015, 1024–1030,” “my discussions above in Section V.B and those above where I reference state-of-art references supporting such understanding,” and “my analysis and discussions in Sections IX.A.1(a)– (l).” Similarly, the Petition states that “[o]ther disclosed features would have been included in the Nakamura-Odendaal system (including as further modified below) for reasons explained,” and provides a citation to “§§IX.A.1(a)–(l)).” Pet. 30. Although there is no rule against internal crossreferencing, and we recognize that it can be useful to avoid duplication, Petitioner’s cross-referencing here results in a lack of clarity. Our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) provides that “parties should avoid submitting a repository of all of the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized arguments, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” Petitioner has failed to follow this guidance, which has made it difficult to discern Petitioner’s precise contentions as to the combination of Nakamura and Odendaal, and further supports that Petitioner has not shown “with particularity” why the ’440 patent is unpatentable over Nakamura, Odendaal, and Calhoon. 22 weight.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends: A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the ’440 patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems. More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed definition of the POSA for purposes of its preliminary response. Prelim. Resp. 6. Petitioner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’440 9 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,577,440
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01102 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 15, 17, and 20–23 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). At the institution phase of an inter partes review, Petitioner’s burden is to show 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).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “POSITA”) would have had “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–22, 23–66). slip op. at 7

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

    “requires a microcontroller configured for “operating in a first mode of operation using a first protocol,” wherein that protocol “is an inductive charging communication-and-control protocol that comprises uni-directional messaging.” In this mode, the claim requires a first communication sent from the receiver (the charged device) to the base system (the charger). Ex. 1001, 72:6–9 (“sending . . . a first communication”). The claim also requires the microcontroller to be configured for “operating in a second mode of operation using a second protocol,” wherein that protocol “is an inductive charging communication-and-control protocol that defines bi-directional messaging.” Id. at 72:12–16. In this mode, the claim requires a second communication sent from the receiver to the base system, and also a third communication sent from the base system to the receiver. Id. at 72:18– 26 (“sending . . . a second communication” and “receiving . . . [a] third communication”). We also note that claim 5, which depends from independent claim 1 (which is similar to claim 15), specifies that “the first mode of operation is a subset of the second mode of operation,” but also note that claim 15 does not have a similar claim that depends from it. Id. at 71:11–12. Independent claim 24 is similar, but states that the second protocol “comprises bi-directional messaging” (emphasis added), instead of claim 1’s recitation of “defines bi-directional messaging” (emphasis added). Compare id. at 72:16 with id. at 74:1. The fact that the two modes of operation specified in claim 15 are otherwise effectively identical but for the unidirectional and bidirectional aspects, suggests that the claims use these terms to distinguish the two modes. In other words, it tends to indicate that the words “uni-directional” and “bi-directional” in claim 15 are intended to refer to distinct messaging protocols (rather than “uni-directional” being merely half of “bi-directional”). See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”). Likewise, the first mode recites “sending . . . a first communication,” whereas the second mode recites both “sending” and “receiving” communications. Although not dispositive (given the “comprising” language of the claims), this language is consistent with an understanding that unidirectional modes only have a sending of information (from the perspective of the power receiving device) whereas bidirectional modes have two-way messaging between the charger and receiver.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s expert and find that it does not provide a factual basis for Petitioner’s assertion that unidirectional messaging is just one leg of bidirectional messaging. See, e.g., Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112). In particular, the expert’s testimony largely just repeats the assertions of the Petition, without providing sufficient additional analysis or evidence useful to determine how a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe those terms. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–114; see also 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.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Instead, Petitioner’s expert appears to largely assume that the prior art reference Sogabe discloses unidirectional messaging, giving the expert’s opinion little probative value. Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to provide prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,342,777

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.