- Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00972 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable because Speight anticipates them; the Board found Peisa anticipation and Peisa–Heo obviousness unproven for the challenged claims in those grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contention or propose a level of skill. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“agreement that this claim term should be read as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.” Dec. 11. The parties do not challenge this construction in the Patent Owner Response, Reply, or Sur-reply. On the complete record, we construe “wherein resources are allocated for data of each channel having a second parameter above zero prior to another channel’s data for transmission having a third parameter less than or equal to zero” as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.”” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition is required to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner argued in the Petition that “as properly construed, the claimed ‘first parameter,’ ‘second parameter,’ ‘third parameter,’ and ‘fourth parameter’ are four different parameters.” Pet. 17–18. In the Institution Decision, Petitioner prevailed on that point and “we agree[d] with Petitioner that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels.” Dec. 14. Patent Owner “relie[d] on the Board’s construction ‘that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels,’” and proposed distinct parameters in the Specification that it alleges are examples of second and third parameters, albeit not the same two parameters proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 9, 29. Petitioner now proposes new constructions for the second and third parameters that would limit those parameters to the two examples it advanced in the Petition and improperly supports these new constructions with new expert testimony and an exhibit from the prosecution of a later patent. Reply 20–25; Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29; Ex. 1038. See also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”)10 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). As Patent Owner observes (Sur-reply 10 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 21), it has no opportunity to introduce rebuttal evidence contesting the new constructions. See TPG 73–74 (Nov. 2019) (“The sur-reply may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the crossexamination of any reply witness. Sur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony.”). We agree with Patent Owner that it would be unfair to consider Petitioner’s new construction. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”). Thus, Petitioner has forfeited its new claim construction arguments and they will not be considered. See TPG 74 (“While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.”). Moreover, these arguments would be unpersuasive even if considered. Petitioner has, at most, cited description in the Specification to show that its identified second and third parameters are examples corresponding to the recited second and third parameters. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 84–95. This description does not define the second and third parameters nor purport to exclude from the claims any parameter that would otherwise meet the language of the claims. The prosecution history to which Petitioner cites, that of a child application, took place after the prosecution of the ’466 patent and thus, does not constitute a definition or disclaimer of subject matter for claims of the ’466 patent. In any case, the brief argument in the cited response to office action, that “[i]n the algorithm, the first value is provided by the wireless network for each of a plurality of buffers where the buffer having the second value above a threshold transmits data first,” does not define the second and third parameters, disavow any values from those parameters, or even discuss the third parameter. Ex. 1038, 12. Petitioner’s extrinsic evidence, Dr. Akl’s testimony, does little more than repeat the arguments in the Reply and, thus, is of little value. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29. In sum, we maintain our construction that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels. Under this construction, RAAUq” and RAAUq’, respectively, could potentially be second and third parameters, as could RAAUq’ and RAAUq”, respectively, as long as they satisfy the rest of the pertinent language of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“production, we still would find that a skilled artisan would not have been able to ascertain from the disclosure in the ’421 application that RAAUq’ could take values less than zero. Instead, even if we were to credit Dr. Lomp’s testimony, to conclude that RAAUq’ can take negative values, a skilled artisan would need to program computer software to simulate the ’421 application’s algorithm and correctly choose starting parameters and other context variables without guidance from the description in the ’421 application. This case is similar to that in New Railhead, where the written description was insufficient because “one of ordinary skill in the art must first make the patented invention before he can ascertain the claimed features of that invention.” 298 F.3d at 1295. This case also is similar to Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, in which an application’s written description was insufficient because assumptions and starting variables were not knowable from the disclosure in the application. 849 F.3d at 1058. Thus, even if we were to conclude that Patent Owner has met its burden of production, a preponderance of the evidence shows that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for Alternative A. In sum, we conclude that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for the challenged claims and that, therefore, Speight is prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,681,466 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,681,466 - PTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00483 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–18 and 20–22, but denied substitute claims 23–43 for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“37 C.F.R. §§ 42.121(b)(1) and (2). The patent owner bears the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a motion to amend complies with these requirements. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1). “[T]he motion [to amend] must set forth written description support for each proposed substitute claim as a whole, and not just the features added by the amendment.” Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15, 8 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). B. Lack of Written Description Support” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“the ’556 application does not provide written description support for the proposed substitute claims. For limitations 23e, 30e, and 37e of respective independent proposed claims 23, 30, and 37, Patent Owner points to paragraphs 11, 37, 60, 78, 83–85, 90, 109–113, 119–130, 150, and Figure 11 of the ’556 application as providing written description support. MTA 6–7, 10, 14–15; Reply 2–3. Reviewing these paragraphs, however, we find no description of the subject matter recited in limitation 23e, which recites “responsive to determining that the [first] variation of the soft information change how the hard information is displayed at the client device, determine a second variation of the soft information.” Nor do we find in those passages written description of the subject matter recited in the similar language of limitations 30e and 37e. Specifically, paragraphs 11 and 37 of the ’556 application address prediction of the response message expected from the client device (similar to limitations 23h–23j, 30h–30j, and 37h–37j, which were added in the MTA to the original claims of the ’759 patent). Paragraphs 60, 78, 83, and 84 describe specific ways to vary soft messaging to establish secondary communications between a server and a client device to detect the presence of a malicious application. Paragraph 85 describes a priori recording of soft information variations to create large sets of composite (hard and soft) messages to be transmitted together. Paragraph 85 also states that, alternatively, the hard and soft messages may be transmitted separately. Paragraph 90 mentions use of “spaghetti” code and soft formatting to make it difficult for malicious applications to alter, replace, or counterfeit in real time. Paragraphs 109 to 113 mention various ways to vary soft information and soft messaging, such as varying or selecting different characters sets, font type, color, or weight, and point sizes from session to session, and predicting the response from the client device to compare with the actual response. Paragraphs 119 to 125 and Figure 11 address soft messaging using un-rendered page elements, and paragraphs 126 to 130 describe soft messaging using graphical elements. Paragraph 150 discusses identifying compatible soft information and selecting a variation of soft information to prevent malicious applications from reverse engineering the soft messaging used to validate communications. None of these disclosures describe the “trial and error” or “testing” approach of limitations 23e, 30e, and 37e in which, responsive to determining that a first variation of the soft information changes how the hard information is displayed at the client device, the security processor creates a second variation of soft information (which is included in the message to the client device if it does not vary how the hard information is displayed—see limitations 23f–23g, 30f–30g, and 37f–37g) to prevent a malicious application from interacting with the hard information. Accordingly, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden to show that limitations 23e, 30e, and 37e of independent proposed substitute claims 23, 30, and 37, as presented in the Motion to Amend, have written description support in the ’556 application, as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(2).” slip op. at 11
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,230,759 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Dolby Laboratories Licensing CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00275 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, and 8 were not shown unpatentable because they were entitled to the April 23, 2012 priority date, making the asserted references unavailable as prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Alleged RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja at 32. As in SharkNinja and AIT Remand, the alleged unnamed RPIs here have a relationship with the petitioner. SharkNinja at 16; AIT Remand at 20–21. Unlike in AIT Remand, however, neither Petitioner nor any of the Alleged RPIs were sued. SharkNinja at 2; AIT Remand at 24–26; Pet. Reply 28 (asserting that “[n]o one, including no [Petitioner] member, has challenged the patent, and, to [Petitioner’s] knowledge, no one has been sued or threatened with suit on it,” and that thus, “no alleged RPI is estopped under §315(e) and/or time-barred under §315(b), the framework’s driving policy considerations”) (citing AIT Remand at 2, SharkNinja at 32). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See, e.g., Paper 5 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 2; PO Resp. 17–37. Accordingly, we determine that neither issues of time bar nor issues of estoppel are implicated. Under the Board’s precedential decision in Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., the Board’s jurisdiction to consider a petition does not require an identification of all RPIs in a petition. IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential); see also Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB July 18, 2017) (“Evidence [of failure to identify all RPIs] is, at best, suggestive of an issue that is not jurisdictional.”). The Federal Circuit has held that § 312(a)(2) is not jurisdictional. See Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (reiterating the Board’s aim to achieve a “just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of inter partes review proceedings and citing Lumentum’s holding that jurisdiction is maintained even where a petition does not identify all real parties in interest). In the present proceeding, there is no allegation that Petitioner’s exclusion of the Alleged RPIs should result in termination of the proceeding for any reason other than for the alleged failure of jurisdiction. See PO Resp. 21. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence that any of the Alleged RPIs is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that Petitioner purposefully omitted any of the Alleged RPIs to gain some advantage in our forum. Therefore, we decline to make the requested determination.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“Alleged RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja at 32. As in SharkNinja and AIT Remand, the alleged unnamed RPIs here have a relationship with the petitioner. SharkNinja at 16; AIT Remand at 20–21. Unlike in AIT Remand, however, neither Petitioner nor any of the Alleged RPIs were sued. SharkNinja at 2; AIT Remand at 24–26; Pet. Reply 28 (asserting that “[n]o one, including no [Petitioner] member, has challenged the patent, and, to [Petitioner’s] knowledge, no one has been sued or threatened with suit on it,” and that thus, “no alleged RPI is estopped under §315(e) and/or time-barred under §315(b), the framework’s driving policy considerations”) (citing AIT Remand at 2, SharkNinja at 32). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See, e.g., Paper 5 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 2; PO Resp. 17–37. Accordingly, we determine that neither issues of time bar nor issues of estoppel are implicated.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Alleged RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja at 32. As in SharkNinja and AIT Remand, the alleged unnamed RPIs here have a relationship with the petitioner. SharkNinja at 16; AIT Remand at 20–21. Unlike in AIT Remand, however, neither Petitioner nor any of the Alleged RPIs were sued. SharkNinja at 2; AIT Remand at 24–26; Pet. Reply 28 (asserting that “[n]o one, including no [Petitioner] member, has challenged the patent, and, to [Petitioner’s] knowledge, no one has been sued or threatened with suit on it,” and that thus, “no alleged RPI is estopped under §315(e) and/or time-barred under §315(b), the framework’s driving policy considerations”) (citing AIT Remand at 2, SharkNinja at 32). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See, e.g., Paper 5 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 2; PO Resp. 17–37. Accordingly, we determine that neither issues of time bar nor issues of estoppel are implicated.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“With the exception of the date applied, the two definitions appear, on the whole, consistent. Petitioner specifies the qualifications that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had as of July 2016, whereas Patent Owner’s declarant ties the qualifications to April 2012. The record provides no reason that the differences between the two definitions are attributable to the dates provided. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we determine would apply at all relevant times. This level of skill comports with the teachings of the ’577 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis would be the same if we applied the level of skill described by Patent Owner’s declarant at all relevant times.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,237,577 not shown unpatentable§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,237,577 - Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,807,826 - Vudu, LLC v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01688 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are unpatentable over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. does it present its own definition. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” “SegmentBase,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its briefing. We need not construe any claim term to resolve any issues before us, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely because paragraph 253 uses the term “[h]ereinafter” before it discloses “two simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited 8 Ex. 2005 is Application No. 16/168,933 (“the ’933 application”). in limitations [38.6], [40.6], and [46.6]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicates a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. MTA 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 38, 40, and 46 do not find sufficient written description support in the ’644 application nor in the ’933 application, whether considered individually or collectively, and thus, these claims contain new matter.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“rationale for combining DIS 23009-1 with M20060, Petitioner persuasively contends that: A POSA would have been motivated to add the additional “metadata” described in M20060 to the MPDs described in the DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 references in order to enable the client to choose the most suitable version of media content among alternative versions of media content. For example, M20060 describes that the additional metadata (e.g., the extended accessibility element and the usedWith, equivalentTo, bitDepth, minBitDepth, and maxBitDepth attributes) helps “both users and clients to select appropriate representations” by, for example, “1) supporting accessibility, 2) describing relationships of representations, and 3) describing media’s bit depth.” Moreover, a POSA would have had an expectation of success in modifying the MPDs in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 to include the additional metadata described below because it simply would have been a matter of adding additional metadata to the MPD XML schemas described in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1. Id. (citing Ex. 1094 ¶ 33; Ex. 1097 § 1, 1). Dr. Bestavros persuasively explains that “M20060 expressly references the DIS 23001-6 reference and proposes specific modifications to the MPEG DASH metadata included in the MPD XML schema.” Ex. 1094 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1097 § 1, 1 (introduction of M20060); Ex. 1097, 7 (references cited by M20060)).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 10,270,830 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,270,830 - Vudu, Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01689 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 11, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend proposing claims 31–35 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor does it present its own definition in any of its briefing. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the Specification of the ’414 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in any of its briefing. 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“The newly-cited portion in paragraph 232 does not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited in limitations [31.11], [32.12], and [35.7]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicate a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 31, 32, and 35 do not have sufficient written description support in the ’644 application and the ’092 application, either individually or collectively, and as such, contain new matter.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“are not entitled to a priority date earlier than March 16, 2012 (the filing date of PCT ’922), because the disclosure of KR10-2011-0023271 does not support at least the limitations of: “the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and the “SegmentTemplate” recited in independent claims 25. Patent Owner has not asserted, after institution, that the challenged claims are entitled to an earlier date. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indicating that patent owner bears a burden of production in arguing that the asserted references are not prior art based on entitlement to an earlier priority date). As such and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that DIS 23001-6, DIS 23009-1, and 3GPP TS 26.247 qualify as prior art to the challenged claims, because Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the references were publicly accessible prior to the applicable priority date of March 16, 2012.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,313,414 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,313,414 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00112 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 lacks written description support; all petition grounds were included.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“content for output.” Id. at 89. We determine, however, that Petitioner’s argument under Step 2A Prong One that claim 1 is directed to the “obtaining content for output” is not substantially different from the Examiner’s determination that claims 1‒20 recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Compare Pet. 37–88 (citing e.g. Electric Power), with Ex. 2001, 193–194 (also citing Electric Power). In both cases, the argument is the same or substantially the same, i.e., that similarly identified subject matter of the claim is obtaining (collecting) data and displaying (outputting) it. Nevertheless, as to Step 2A Prong Two, we determine that the claims at issue in the ’096 prosecution differ in material ways from the ’903 patent claims at issue in this PGR. Specifically, the ’096 patent claims recite a touchscreen interface not recited in the ’903 patent claims. Additionally, the ’903 claims focus on the “output device” as performing the patented steps but in the ’096 prosecution history the “‘information apparatus performs the patented steps and “is integral to the claims” (as the Applicant argued). See Ex. 2008 [comparison of ’096 prosecution claims and ’903 claims]; Ex. 2001, 150; see also Pet. 89 (“the claims at issue in the ’067 application were different than the claims of the ’903 patent addressed here.”). rejection and arguments in the ’096 prosecution history turns on whether the claims in this PGR recite different elements that must be determined to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., Prong Two of Step 2A). Petitioner argues that an essential element different than the ’096 claims, i.e. the output device, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not amount to an improvement to computer functionality. Pet. 37–72. We find this a close case. Nevertheless, due to the differences in the claims, we determine that the Examiner’s withdrawal of the § 101 rejection in light of the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific technical solution is not substantially the same argument that Petitioner’s presents in the Petition as to Prong Two of Step 2A.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“C. Lack of Written Description Support Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description for the same reasons it contends the ’903 patent is PGR eligible. Pet. 13–36. The Specification of the ’903 patent has substantially the same disclosures as the Specification of the ’413 application relied on by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 20) to which the ’903 patent claims priority. Having determined that the disclosures in the ’903 patent Specification and the ’413 application is insufficient to provide written description support for the at least claim 1, we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable for the same reasons. Thus, we exercise our discretion and institute post grant review of claims 1–20 challenged under this ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).” slip op. at 33
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted
“in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that an output system/device could be (or include) an information apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 24. We determine that Patent Owner’s argument has a logical flaw––i.e., the fact that a particular device could be used alternately as an information apparatus or an output device does not necessarily mean that it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combined information apparatus/output device and have the new combined device perform all the additional functions required by the claims. “The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.” Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rivera”). “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification . . . . It extends only to that which is 1997). Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’413 application teaching that an “output device” can perform the functions of the “information apparatus” including its interactions with the “output device.” For example, claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving, by the output system . . . output data from at least one server of the one or more servers over the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 37:28–32. At this stage, we find sufficiently persuasive Petitioner’s argument, which we discuss above, that the only written description support for an “output device” that performs the claimed functions by accessing the Internet provided by Patent Owner is not an “output device” but an “information apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. at 27–29.” slip op. at 29
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Mayo · Bilski · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,029,903 - ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00111 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the challenged patent was not eligible for post-grant review; it found the priority applications supported claims 6 and 19 and did not reach the § 101 ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the above reasons, we are persuaded that the ’031 patent’s priority applications (pre-AIA applications) provide written description support for the claim limitation that “that the “output system” (claim 6) or “output device” (claim 19) can be an “Internet appliance.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claims 6 and 19 have an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, claims 6 and 19 do not render the ’031 patent eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 6(f)(2)(A). Accordingly, the information presented in the Petition does not establish that the ’031 patent is eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“Finally, the definition of output device in the priority ’765 Application (as in the Specification of the ’031 patent) is that an “[o]utput device [] is an electronic system capable of outputting digital content … Any device capable of playing or reading digital content in voice (e.g., music, speech) or data (e.g., text, document) is also a possible output device.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (alterations in original) (quoting Ex. 1011 (’765 application) ¶ 89, Ex. 1001, 16:29–41). An Internet appliance does fall within that definition. The ’765 Application also contemplates that an output device is a network device accessible through an IP address. See Ex. 1011, 14 (referring to “[i]dentification of an output device” by “IP address”). Put another way, the priority application adequately describes a device fitting the description of” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,846,031 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2022 · PGR2021-00108 · APJ Aaron W Moore · PGR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable, including because the asserted combination did not link rule generation to the packet correlation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Obviousness Analysis A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, primarily: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.6 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–2, 7–8, 10, 12–13, and 17–18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 18–64. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2-3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’797 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “determining . . . a first plurality of log entries” and “determining . . . a second plurality of log entries” is “identifying” or “ascertaining” log entries.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he terms “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the first plurality of packets received by the network device,” and “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the second plurality of packets transmitted by the network device” (“provisioning rules”) . . . should be given their plain and ordinary meaning—rules configured to identify packets.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Neither party, however, argues that the prior art arguments presented in the Petition turn on the construction of these terms. Instead, it appears that they are raised as claim construction issues only because Petitioner is challenging the language under Section 112. We will discuss the Section 112 arguments below, but do not see a dispute about the constructions offered by the parties above the makes a difference in the prior art analysis and, therefore, do not construe these terms at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“respect to this limitation for several reasons, including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning” is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not “based on the determined correlation.” Prelim. Resp. 38. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the determined correlation, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the first host.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,931,797 - Nikon Corporation v. Carl Zeiss AG And ASML Netherlands B.V.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 1, 2019 · IPR2018-00686 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Nikon’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–5, 7–10, 16, 24, and 30–33 based on § 325(d) and the priority-date analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically 1 The Petition, in an apparent typographic error, omits claim 5 from its listing of challenged claims on page 1. identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In the Institution Decision, we denied institution of Ground 1 based on our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 17. Specifically, we determined that the Kaifu reference relied on by Petitioner was considered during prosecution. Id. Petitioner asserts that we misapprehended or overlooked its arguments regarding why its contentions as to Kaifu were not considered by the Examiner.” slip op. at 3
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“written description. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal brackets omitted) (en banc) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Thus, the specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed, at the time of filing, the subject matter that he or she has claimed. Id. “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement is a question of fact. Id. at 1351, 1355. Entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject matter that is disclosed, not to that which is obvious. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that because the open ended term “comprising” was used in the original claim reciting “a” signal, the recitation of “a” signal and “one or more” signals would have the same scope. An indefinite article, such as “a,” in patent parlance encompasses “one or more” when used, as here, in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.” Id. Thus, the claim as amended, which removes the open ended preface “comprising” and changes the modifier of “select signals” from “a” to “one or more,” does not change the scope of the claim in that respect. It merely is a different phrasing. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, any description of a system with one signal would necessarily support a claim to one or more signals. Inst. Dec. 28. Additionally, the claim, as amended, does not suggest there is choice between alternatives that would meet this claim. For example, the claim does not require a choice between a first type of signal and a second type of signal. The claim recites “one” signal, which can be optionally accompanied (“or”) by “more” signals.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,728,574
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.