- Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,294,403 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,680 - Apple Inc. v. Varia Holdings LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01363 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–32 and all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We do not agree that Zalewski is substantively identical to Willgert. As discussed below in Section IV.D.4.c), Zalewski disclosed an RFID transponder in a removable cover for a phone that was completely separate from the voice call components of the telephone itself. Ex. 2001, 7:63–8:3. Based on this, Applicant successfully distinguished Zalewski because the RFID transponder functionality, being contained in a removable cover, was completely independent of the phone device, and thus the claim requirement of a “communication device determining the mobile communication device is in an operational space” was not met. Ex. 1002, 94–95. On this basis, Applicant also argued that claim requirements of switching between a voice call state and an RFID transponder state were not met. Ex. 1008, 18, 91, 134–135, 155; Ex. 1002, 530. In contrast, Willgert discloses an RFID transponder that is integrated with a mobile telephone, and so it cannot be distinguished on the basis that was used for Zalewski. Ex. 1004 ¶ 32. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any preliminary response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to challenged claims 1–32 and the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[W]ould have been someone knowledgeable in mobile communication devices and components used therein, cellular radio systems, and wireless communications, such as those used for voice calling and radio frequency identification (RFID). That person would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, with a background in radio frequency communications as well as approximately two years of experience working with or researching radio frequency communication systems. Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not offer a specific definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’947 patent specification. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“not agree, based on the current record, that the claims should be construed to encompass a device that has independent RFID transponder components that are separate from and independent of the components that provide voice call capability. During prosecution of related applications, in distinguishing Zalewski, Applicant disavowed such a broad interpretation. For example, Applicant asserted: The term “transceiver” . . . is well understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably interpret a "transceiver" so broadly as to incorporate an entire mobile device's circuitry, and in particular to be read on by two separate transmitters . . . . Ex. 1008, 40. Also: [A] person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood “a transceiver of a mobile communication device” to be a transmitter and receiver combined in a single package/housing/unit and sharing at least some common circuitry for both transmission and reception located within a mobile communication device. . . . . A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Applicants’ disclosure as describing a single transceiver that can be switched from a first state in which it transmits voice call signals to a second state in which it transmits RFID signals. Id. at 92, 94. However, Petitioner also argues, and provides expert testimony in support, that it would have been obvious to integrate Willgert’s communications unit with the voice call capability of a mobile telephone. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–130). At this stage of the proceeding, we find support for this position, including the fact that Willgert specifically teaches that the communications unit can be integrated into a mobile telephone. Ex. 1004 ¶ 32. Patent Owner challenges this argument based on the statement in Willgert that the communications unit can be “constructed so that the transponder will also function when the mobile telephone is switched-off.” Prelim. Resp. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 31). However, Willgert provides this as one option, and we do not find that this statement teaches away from a fully integrated approach alternative.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,405,947 - Apple Inc. v. Varia Holdings LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01364 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–39 on all grounds in the Petition, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board may exercise discretion to deny a petition that presents the same or substantially the same art or arguments as were previously presented to the Office. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (providing that the Board institutes on behalf of the Director). The Board has outlined factors it considers in determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton Dickinson”). The Becton Dickinson factors apply when a petition relies on art or arguments previously presented to the Office during any proceeding pertaining to the challenged patent, including reexamination, reissue, and AIA post-grant proceedings. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8–10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). Advanced Bionics explains how the Becton Dickinson factors fit into a two-part framework that examines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any preliminary response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to challenged claims 1–19 and the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundOther
“Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated by the fact that the Willgert teaches that integrating its communications unit into a mobile telephone designed for Bluetooth communication was a “highly user-friendly application,” and that it was well known practice to use a Bluetooth headset wirelessly communicating with the phone to enable hands-free phone calls, as specifically taught by Mooney. Pet. 12–14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8, 30–32; Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 7, 39, 46–48; Ex. 1021; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–76). Petitioner further argues that Bluetooth headsets were widely available, that incorporating the headset involved known methods yielding predictable results, and that one of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected to succeed in combining the teachings of Willgert and Mooney. Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8, 10; Ex. 1005, ¶ 8; Ex. 1017, 1, 3; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–79). Patent Owner does not address the issue of motivation to combine Willgert and Mooney. See generally Prelim. Resp. We find, based on the current record, that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Willgert and Mooney.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther
“Willgert/Mooney combination does not teach or suggest the voice call signal requirements of the claims. As stated in the ’984 patent, the voice call signals relate to “the primary function of [the mobile communications device], i.e. to facilitate a user in communicating with another user of another communication device.” Ex. 1001, 3:47–49. The proffered combination of wirelessly connecting a Bluetooth headset to the Bluetooth receiver/transmitter of Willgert’s communications unit includes the fact that the Willgert communications unit is integrated into a mobile telephone. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 30, 32. Thus, when the telephone is being used for its “primary purpose” of communicating with another user, the same voice call signal involved in that communication is also being transmitted from the telephone to the Bluetooth headset. We see no reason why the claimed “voice call signals” must be construed to exclude such signals. Patent Owner declined to address claim construction in its Preliminary Response, but is free to explore this issue post-institution. We also disagree, based on the current record, with Patent Owner’s assertion that Willgert’s RFID transponder 2 does not transmit “RFID transponder data” or “RFID transponder signals.” The very term itself — RFID transponder — as well as the explicit disclosures in Willgert, establish that the RFID transponder transmits RFID signals and data. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 14–19. Although, as Patent Owner points out, the ’984 patent discloses embodiments that “emulate” an RFID transponder, there is no reason to confine the scope of the claims to the disclosed embodiments and there is nothing in the ’984 specification or claims that disavows including Willgert’s RFID transponder within the scope of the claims. Also, Patent Owner’s reliance on the prosecution history regarding the Zalewski patent is misplaced. As Patent Owner has explained, Zalewski disclosed “‘an RFID transponder 110’ embedded in a removable cover for a phone or other device ‘such as an MP3 player.’” Prelim. Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2001, 7:63–8:3). Based on this, Applicant successfully distinguished Zalewski because the RFID transponder functionality, being contained in a removable cover, was completely independent of the phone device, and thus the claim requirements of a transceiver or transmitter switching between a voice call state and an RFID transponder state were not met. Ex. 1002, 18, 91, 134–135, 155; Ex. 1009, 530. Zalewski was not distinguished based on whether or not the RFID transponder was emulated. Again, Patent Owner is free to explore the scope of the claim terms “transceiver” and “transmitter” post-institution.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,127,984 - PTAB · Jan 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00979 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–18 on all four asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Dolan renders at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“As set forth in the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (dated June 21, 2022), at 7, available at https://www.uspto. gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_ parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Petitioner’s stipulation (Ex. 1018) satisfies the language from the Director’s Memorandum quoted above. Therefore, we need not analyze each Fintiv factor to reach the determination that we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution in view of the parallel Eastern District of Texas Litigation.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Electronics, America, Inc.; and Google LLC as real parties in interest. Pet. 57. Petitioner explains that “Google LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.” Id. at 57 n.10. Petitioner asserts that “XXVI Holdings Inc. and Alphabet Inc. are not real parties-in-interest to this proceeding.” Id. Patent Owner identifies Cerence Operating Co., a subsidiary of Cerence, Inc., as a real party in interest. Paper 5, 1. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner, contending that Alphabet Inc. is also a real party in interest. Id. At this stage of the proceeding, we need not determine whether Alphabet Inc. is a real party in interest to Petitioner since neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner has identified any effect that determination would have on the outcome of this proceeding. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to maintain this contention, it should raise the issue in its Patent Owner response.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not currently take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art and believes that “the Board could assume Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for the purposes of deciding whether to institute.” Prelim. Resp. 3. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested, proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’993 patent and the prior art of record. 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 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need to be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). At this time, neither party proposes a specific construction of any given claim term, instead requesting that the claims be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10–11; Prelim. Resp. 5.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,081,993 - PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00913 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 6–12, 14, and 16–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim in each petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“First, we find no basis for exercising our discretion to deny institution with regard to the Juniper case because that case does not yet have a scheduling order in place, and, as Petitioner points out, the median time to trial in that district is 34.6 months, which puts the trial in approximately July 2026, so there is nothing in the record to indicate that a trial will occur before our deadline for a final written decision in these proceedings. See Fintiv at 5 (“When the patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial under NHK due to an earlier trial date, the Board’s decisions have balanced [Fintiv] factors [1–6].” (emphasis added)); Pet. 67 (arguing that “the court has neither entered a schedule nor set a trial date”); Prelim. Resp. 18 (acknowledging that “the court has not yet entered a schedule or set a trial date for the Juniper case”). Second, following submission of the papers in these proceedings, the Cisco case was dismissed on December 26, 2024. Ex. 3001. Accordingly, there will be no trial in the Cisco case and thus we are not persuaded that the interests of efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by invoking our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Petitioner filed both of its petitions in the instant proceedings on the same day, May 31, 2024, and the prior petition in IPR2024-00506 was filed by a different party previously sued for infringement of the ’394 patent in a different district court case. Therefore, there are no serial petitions, as that term is used in General Plastic, filed in these IPRs. However, “our application of the General Plastic factors is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner. Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). Petitioner argues that “no significant relationship exists” between it and Cisco, as they were “accused of infringing the ’394 patent with different products in different court proceedings . . . and have not coordinated regarding the ’394 patent, the separately accused products, or the filing of petitions for IPR.” Pet. 70. Patent Owner provides no evidence of a significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco, but nonetheless argues that factors 1–5 favor discretionary denial anyway, because Petitioner had knowledge of the Cisco petition, citing the Board’s decision in Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2020) (“Ericsson”), for the proposition that Petitioner’s use of the Cisco petition as a roadmap ties the interests of the petitioners together. Prelim. Resp. 26. We are not persuaded by this assertion. First, Ericsson is not a precedential or informative decision and is not binding on us or informative to our analysis. Moreover, in that case there were five prior petitions that covered all of the challenged claims, and the petitioner admitted crafting its petition based on its review of the prior petitions. Ericsson at 3, 11. Petitioner here has not made such a concession, and moreover, Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that Petitioner actually did use the petition in IPR2024-00506 as a roadmap. Under the circumstances, we find no evidence that Petitioner used the prior petition filed by Cisco as a roadmap, particularly when none of the timing associated with the prior petition was within its control. We find no significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco. “[W]here, as here, the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum Prod. Sols., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd., IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 6 (Vidal Apr. 19, 2024). Accordingly, based on the particular facts of these proceedings, including the points addressed above, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petitions on that basis.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Conclusion Regarding Ground 1 Based on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 1. Petitioner also contends that claim 11, which is an apparatus claim for a network element that otherwise has similar limitations as claim 1, is rendered obvious for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Pet. 57–61. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s arguments for claim 11 for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 10–16. Based on the current record, we also find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 11. We need not determine at this time whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 17, also challenged in Ground 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“sufficient showing that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Hu’s concept of aggregating ports to form a high-capacity port for transmitting multicast streams to the network device disclosed by Blease, and we do not agree that Blease teaches away from incorporating such aggregation. Both Blease and Hu are directed to similar subject matter, processing multicast stream requests, and Hu’s link aggregation addresses the problem of potentially overloading a port when doing so. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (57) (“The network device transmits multicast traffic to the subscriber devices.”); Ex. 1007, claim 17 (“A network device to allocate media streams . . . .”), 1:20–29 (disclosing that, if “insufficient bandwidth [is allocated] to video streams, the quality of service degrades”); see Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“That [two prior art references] address the same problem and that [one of the references] was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent.”). On this record, we are persuaded that applying Hu’s port aggregation teaching to Blease’s router would be the application of a known technique to improve the router to allow it to provide multicast streams that require higher bandwidth with predicable results. Pet. 28; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–21. As pointed out by Petitioner, these two concepts could be combined together in a straightforward manner and applied to streams that require high-capacity ports, a technique already applied elsewhere in Blease to other ports, so a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94; see Elekta Ltd. v. Zap Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Evidence of reasonable expectation of success, just like evidence of a motivation to combine, ‘may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.’”) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). On this record, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Blease teaches away from using aggregated ports to form a high-capacity link because “Blease’s disclosure is clear that the focus of its multicast techniques is to reduce, not increase, the amount of multicast traffic flowing through network.” Prelim. Resp. 14. The discussion in Blease of minimizing the bandwidth does not relate to restricting the bandwidth required for a particular stream as Patent Owner seems to assert, but rather to eliminating duplicate transmissions of the same multicast stream to be delivered to multiple subscribers. See Ex. 1005, 2:39–42, 4:50–56 (“The multicast transmission techniques described herein may significantly reduce the amount of multicast traffic . . . . For example, regardless of the number of subscriber devices[] connected to the same network switch that request the same multicast stream, [the] network device[] only sends one copy of the multicast stream to the network switch.”). Therefore, aggregating ports to accommodate transmission of a single multicast stream that requires more bandwidth is a different concept that is unrelated to the discussion in Blease about minimizing bandwidth by increasing efficiency.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,014,394 - PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00989 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 6–12, 14, and 16–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim in each Petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“First, we find no basis for exercising our discretion to deny institution with regard to the Juniper case because that case does not yet have a scheduling order in place, and, as Petitioner points out, the median time to trial in that district is 34.6 months, which puts the trial in approximately July 2026, so there is nothing in the record to indicate that a trial will occur before our deadline for a final written decision in these proceedings. See Fintiv at 5 (“When the patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial under NHK due to an earlier trial date, the Board’s decisions have balanced [Fintiv] factors [1–6].” (emphasis added)); Pet. 67 (arguing that “the court has neither entered a schedule nor set a trial date”); Prelim. Resp. 18 (acknowledging that “the court has not yet entered a schedule or set a trial date for the Juniper case”). Second, following submission of the papers in these proceedings, the Cisco case was dismissed on December 26, 2024. Ex. 3001. Accordingly, there will be no trial in the Cisco case and thus we are not persuaded that the interests of efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by invoking our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“same day, May 31, 2024, and the prior petition in IPR2024-00506 was filed by a different party previously sued for infringement of the ’394 patent in a different district court case. Therefore, there are no serial petitions, as that term is used in General Plastic, filed in these IPRs. However, “our application of the General Plastic factors is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner. Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). Petitioner argues that “no significant relationship exists” between it and Cisco, as they were “accused of infringing the ’394 patent with different products in different court proceedings . . . and have not coordinated regarding the ’394 patent, the separately accused products, or the filing of petitions for IPR.” Pet. 70. Patent Owner provides no evidence of a significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco, but nonetheless argues that factors 1–5 favor discretionary denial anyway, because Petitioner had knowledge of the Cisco petition, citing the Board’s decision in Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550, Paper 8 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2020) (“Ericsson”), for the proposition that Petitioner’s use of the Cisco petition as a roadmap ties the interests of the petitioners together. Prelim. Resp. 26. We are not persuaded by this assertion. First, Ericsson is not a precedential or informative decision and is not binding on us or informative to our analysis. Moreover, in that case there were five prior petitions that covered all of the challenged claims, and the petitioner admitted crafting its petition based on its review of the prior petitions. Ericsson at 3, 11. Petitioner here has not made such a concession, and moreover, Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that Petitioner actually did use the petition in IPR2024-00506 as a roadmap. Under the circumstances, we find no evidence that Petitioner used the prior petition filed by Cisco as a roadmap, particularly when none of the timing associated with the prior petition was within its control. We find no significant relationship between Petitioner and Cisco. “[W]here, as here, the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Videndum Prod. Sols., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd., IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 6 (Vidal Apr. 19, 2024). Accordingly, based on the particular facts of these proceedings, including the points addressed above, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petitions on that basis.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Conclusion Regarding Ground 1 Based on the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 1. Petitioner also contends that claim 11, which is an apparatus claim for a network element that otherwise has similar limitations as claim 1, is rendered obvious for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Pet. 57–61. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s arguments for claim 11 for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 10–16. Based on the current record, we also find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claim 11. We need not determine at this time whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 17, also challenged in Ground 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“sufficient showing that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Hu’s concept of aggregating ports to form a high-capacity port for transmitting multicast streams to the network device disclosed by Blease, and we do not agree that Blease teaches away from incorporating such aggregation. Both Blease and Hu are directed to similar subject matter, processing multicast stream requests, and Hu’s link aggregation addresses the problem of potentially overloading a port when doing so. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (57) (“The network device transmits multicast traffic to the subscriber devices.”); Ex. 1007, claim 17 (“A network device to allocate media streams . . . .”), 1:20–29 (disclosing that, if “insufficient bandwidth [is allocated] to video streams, the quality of service degrades”); see Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“That [two prior art references] address the same problem and that [one of the references] was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent.”). On this record, we are persuaded that applying Hu’s port aggregation teaching to Blease’s router would be the application of a known technique to improve the router to allow it to provide multicast streams that require higher bandwidth with predicable results. Pet. 28; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–21. As pointed out by Petitioner, these two concepts could be combined together in a straightforward manner and applied to streams that require high-capacity ports, a technique already applied elsewhere in Blease to other ports, so a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94; see Elekta Ltd. v. Zap Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Evidence of reasonable expectation of success, just like evidence of a motivation to combine, ‘may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.’”) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,014,394 - PTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00936 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11–19, 23, 26, 27, and 29–36 are obvious over Tayloe, TI Datasheet, and Macnally.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Petitioner’s stipulation (Ex. 1041) satisfies the language from the Director’s Memorandum quoted above. Therefore, we need not analyze each Fintiv factor to reach the determination that we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution in view of the parallel Western District of Texas Litigation.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Accordingly, on the present record at this stage of the proceeding and for the reasons discussed above, we find that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Tayloe, TI Datasheet, and Macnally with a reasonable expectation of success. Patent Owner is invited to elaborate further on its positions in future briefing with potential expert support.” slip op. at 35
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of EM circuit design.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–71). Petitioner further proposes that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” Id. Patent Owner does not take a position, in the Preliminary Response, on the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the present record at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested, proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’528 patent and the prior art of record. 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 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“their plain and ordinary meaning, with one exception. Pet. 3. Specifically, Petitioner asserts “storage element” or “energy storage element” are recited “interchangeably” in the claims and should each be construed to mean “an element of a system that stores non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal,” which Petitioner notes was “determined by the Board and affirmed by the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Federal Circuit.” Id. (citing ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal, 88 F.4th 969, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (holding “ParkerVision acted as its own lexicographer to define the term ‘storage element’” and “the Board’s construction of ‘storage element’ [(quoted above)] correctly tracks the lexicography provided by [ParkerVision]”) (citing U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 (“the ’551 patent”), 66:55–67)). Petitioner contends that, like U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444 that was at issue in ParkerVision v. Vidal, the ’528 patent also incorporates the ’551 patent by reference. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:30–34). And Petitioner notes that the ’528 patent “includes an identical disclosure to that deemed dispositive from the incorporated by reference ’551 patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 73:9–22 (which Petitioner contends defines “storage module”)). Further, Petitioner asserts “[n]o intrinsic evidence demands a different construction” because, even though claim 1 recites “system,” “energy,” and “transfer,” it does so “in isolation” and “does not recite ‘energy transfer system,’ let alone restrict the claimed ‘storage element’ to any energy transfer system.” Id. at 5 (also contending the file history of the ’528 patent does not support a different construction). Petitioner also contends “the proposed combinations teach the claimed ‘storage element’ or ‘energy storage element,’ even including the alleged condition of ‘low impedance load’ that purportedly ‘goes to the heart of what makes an element, a “storage” element.’” Id. Patent Owner does not take a position on claim construction in the Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the present record at this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner, for the reasons discussed above, that “storage element” and “energy storage element” are used interchangeably in the claims and should be construed consistently with our prior construction of “storage element,” which, as noted above, was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, to mean “an element of a system that stores non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.” We need not construe any other claim terms expressly because there is no present controversy as to the meaning of any other claim terms in this proceeding. Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,118,528 - Mediatek Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00796 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 11 would be obvious over Nevo and Avitabile.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Stipulate[s] and agree[s] that, if the PTAB institutes an inter partes review proceeding (“IPR”) for U.S. Patent No. 7,483,686 on the grounds presented in [the Petition], [Petitioner] will not pursue an invalidity defense in [the Western District of Texas Litigation] that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on the same grounds as in the [P]etition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the [P]etition. Ex. 1015 (letter from M. Bernstein to J. Charkow, dated May 21, 2024); see also Prelim. Reply 1 (“Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 6) fails to acknowledge, much less address, Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation not to pursue in the related litigation the same grounds or any grounds of invalidity that could reasonably have been raised in this IPR.”); Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (Dec. 1, 2020) (Decision Granting Institution) (precedential as to § II.A).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of [radio frequency (‘RF’)] circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems,” and “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine, on the current record, that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’686 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. We adopt that level of ordinary skill in the level of ordinary skill in the art based on the full trial record. slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). Petitioner, however, notes that several claim terms in the ’686 patent, or closely related claim terms for patents related to the ’686 patent, have been construed during prior litigation involving Patent Owner. Id. Petitioner discusses five claim terms and various constructions proposed or adopted in prior litigation. Id. at 15–20.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,483,686 - PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00505 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14, 16–19, and 21–24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious over Gai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Fintiv, we agree that it indicates that this factor weighs in favor of discretionary denial because the trial date is scheduled to occur before the final written decision deadline. However, the trial date here is closer to the deadline for the final written decision, with only a two-month difference here rather than the six-month difference in Fintiv, which increases the possibility here that any unforeseen delay in the district court proceeding could cause the order of those two events to reverse. Fintiv at 9 (“If the court’s trial date is at or around the same time as the projected statutory deadline . . . the decision whether to institute will likely implicate other factors.”). Therefore, we find this factor weighs only slightly in favor of denying institution.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“that Gai, the sole reference asserted in Ground 1, was presented to and considered by the Office during the prosecution of the ’986 patent. Prelim. Resp. 30–31. We agree. Gai appears on the face of the ’986 patent, is incorporated by reference into it, and was submitted in an IDS. See Ex. 1001, 3:15–41; Ex. 1002, 30 (IDS with Examiner acknowledgment). Petitioner acknowledges that the first part of Advanced Bionics is satisfied, so we proceed to the second part of the framework. Pet. 100.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“access switches on the second port.” Ex. 1001, claim 5. We find that Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for us to find a reasonable likelihood that Gai teaches or suggests dependent claims 5 and 17 at this time. Dependent claim 17 is similar to claim 5, but depends on claim 16 (which in turn depends on independent claim 13), adding “wherein the protocol processor is adapted to update the entries in the database to point to the second access port before receiving the communication traffic from the one or more access switches on the second port.” Id. at claim 17. These claims both require the switch implementing the method for rapid recovery, such as switch 124 in Petitioner’s example discussed above, to update its filtering database before receiving communication traffic from access switches, such as access switches 115 and 116 in Petitioner’s example. Pet. 58. That effectively means that switch 124 must update its database immediately upon transitioning to the new port either before or at the same time it transmits dummy messages to the access switches. So this differs from the analysis for claim 4 because allowing the corresponding entry in the filtering database to time out will not be sufficient to ensure that the entries will be updated before receiving communication traffic from one of the access switches. There is no express disclosure from the portions of Gai cited by Petitioner of immediately updating the database on the switch implementing the method. Pet. 57–58, 94; Ex. 1005, 2:30–41, 5:36–39, 5:54–56, 12:62– 65. Based on the current record, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s explanation of why Gai allegedly teaches or suggests this limitation. In the section addressing dependent claim 5, Dr. Houh asserts that: are transmitted before any communication traffic is received by the switch. As I discuss in Section VIII.A.5.ii, the filtering database is updated before transmitting the dummy messages. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood that the database entries would have been updated before receiving any communication traffic from the access switches. Ex. 1003 ¶ 139. However, Section VIII.A.5.ii of Dr. Houh’s declaration relates to dependent claim 4 which does not have any timing requirement, and the citations to Gai there do not describe that the switch first updates its filtering database before sending the dummy message.12 Id. ¶¶ 133–136. Therefore, the conclusory and unsupported assertions that Gai teaches or suggests this limitation, or renders it obvious to a POSITA, do not persuade us that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these claims, at least at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 58
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Id. Therefore, after a failure and switchover, edge switch 124 transmits dummy traffic to access switch 116 over the second link. Id. Based on the current record, we agree that this example is at least suggested by Gai’s teaching that “the method and apparatus manifests, in part, as a series of novel commands that may be entered at the devices. The devices, moreover, may be classified as either access switches or backbone switches.” Ex. 1005, 6:6–9. Switch 124 is a backbone switch because it interconnects at least access switches 114–116, and, according to Gai, the invention can be implemented on that switch by entering the corresponding commands on it. Id. The rest of the example, whereby ports are switched based on a failure and dummy traffic that is transmitted to the access switches updates their filtering databases, also follows Gai’s teaching. Pet. 39–46; Ex. 1005, 5:35– 6:12. Patent Owner responds to this argument by asserting that “Gai itself never describes backbone switch 124 in such a way,” disputing it could transmit dummy traffic to access switch 116 over the second link. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Rather, according to Patent Owner, “Gai clearly explains that such an action is in response to a port failure in access switch 114, not in teaching to the preferred embodiment that describes the failure occurring at switch 114, which we do not find warranted in view of the general teaching from Gai discussed above saying the invention can also be implemented on backbone switches. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A reference must be considered for everything it teaches.”).” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,917,986
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.