- Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · PGR2024-00048 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–6 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024). Upon considering the evidence and arguments presented, we determine, as discussed below, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny1 Petitioner’s request to institute post-grant review of claims 1–6.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Khatri, proposes a definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Dr. Khatri, however, notes that his opinions would be the same under either his proposal or Petitioner’s proposal. Id. ¶¶ 25–26. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the Preliminary Response, it “adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 22–23; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–26). We determine that the current record supports Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “MLC memory modules” and “SLC memory module.” Pet. 23–28. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s constructions, but does not contest them because it argues that construction of these terms is not necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. Prelim. Resp. 14. Based on the record presented, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “more likely than not” standard for instituting a post- grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he written description requirement is met when the disclosure relied on for support ‘reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citation omitted)). The written description inquiry is a question of fact, is context specific, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “[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. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1357–58). Factors used to evaluate the sufficiency of a disclosure include: 1) “the existing knowledge in the particular field”; 2) “the extent and content of the prior art”; 3) “the maturity of the science or technology”; and 4) “the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1359). As support for the term “memory space,” the ’612 patent explains that because “the SLC NAND flash is used to boost the lifetime (endurance) of the storage system, it can be considerably lesser in amount than the MLC NAND flash.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–23; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. As an example, the ’612 specification states that “a system may set SLC NAND flash equal to 12.5% or 25% of MLC NAND flash (total non-volatile memory storage space=MLC+SLC).” Ex. 1001, 5:23–25; see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 51, 62. In addition, we find persuasive Dr. Khatri’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “there are two spaces—MLC and SLC—where data is stored, and the total memory space is the combination of the two.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. Further, the ’612 patent’s Figure 1 depicts “memory space,” e.g., dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) 20, one or more disks 24, MLC NAND flash memory module 26, and SLC NAND flash memory module 28. Ex. 1001, 5:37–45, Fig. 1; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. The ’612 patent’s Figure 4 also depicts “memory space,” e.g., NAND flash memory bank 56 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60a and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62a” and NAND flash memory bank 58 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60b and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62b.” Ex. 1001, 7:8–14, Fig. 4; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. On the record before us, we find the above noted disclosures to be sufficient to support the disputed claim language. For these reasons, the ’612 patent’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,854,612 - Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · PGR2024-00047 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any of claims 1–7 was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not shown unpatentable
“2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as encompassing a” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 26
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not shown unpatentable
“2. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Petitioner challenges the ’546 patent’s claims as failing to satisfy” slip op. at 36
§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,830,546 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · PGR2022-00044 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the anticipation and obviousness grounds based on HEVC265.
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 at the priority date for the ’274 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related scientific field such as physics or computer science, and two years of work experience with video processing. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 4–5 years). This definition would apply at the earliest claimed priority date of the ’274 Patent as well as any later date. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 50–52). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it appears to be consistent with the Specification of the ’274 patent and the cited reference.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“A party is collaterally estopped from relitigating an issue if: (1) a prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 21
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons that follow, we determine that the ’928 application does not provide sufficient written description support, for at least independent claim 1 of the ’274 patent, so as to “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” of the ’928 application. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the ’928 application lacks sufficient written description support for the invention recited in claim 1 of the ’274 patent, and thus, claim 1 does not receive an effective filing date as early as that of the ’928 application (i.e., December 23, 2010). We further determine that Petitioner filed the Petition within the 9-month statutory period for requesting post-grant review in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 321(c). The ’274 patent issued on September 14, 2021 (see Ex. 1001, code (45)), and the present Petition was accorded a filing date of June 9, 2022 (see Paper 5). Accordingly, the Petition was filed less than 9 months after the date of issuance of the ’274 patent. In view of the above, we are persuaded that the ’274 patent is eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,122,274 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,122,274 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2022-00044 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted post-grant review of claims 1–13 on all grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least claim 1 lacks written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-reply, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner satisfies its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to show that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’274 patent is unpatentable. Therefore, we authorize a post-grant review to be instituted as to all grounds and all challenged claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“Id. at 7:24–8:4 (emphasis added). The ’928 application repeatedly makes clear that directionality and intra mode are related, but distinct concepts. They are not interchangeable as Patent Owner argues. On this point, we find Dr. Freedman’s explanation in paragraph 85 of his Declaration on the relationship between “intra mode” and “directionality” to be particularly well-reasoned and persuasive. As Dr. Freedman explains, [t]hroughout the ’928 application, the text uses the term “directionality” to refer to characteristics of neighboring blocks, whereas the term “intra mode” is used when referring to the current block. For example, the ’928 application describes that “directionality” of neighboring blocks is “estimated from the neighboring blocks” that “have already been reconstructed” while the “intra mode” is selected for the current block for purposes of reconstructing that current block. This is likely because the neighboring blocks “have already been reconstructed” and thus, the intra mode number that was used in reconstructing those blocks is no longer pertinent. Instead, what is pertinent in the ’928 application’s method is the directionality characteristic of those neighboring blocks. Phrased differently, in the ’928 application, directionality is a concept that is evaluated after performance of intra prediction (i.e., after reconstruction), whereas the intra mode or number is a concept used during performance of intra prediction. They are not equivalent in the context of the ’928 application. Ex. 1005 ¶ 86 (citing Ex. 1028, 11:14–12:4, 25:10–15; Ex. 1036, 706 (“The DCT coefficients gathered from the MPEG 2 process are used to estimate the directional features in a picture. The estimated directional features are then used to compute the intra prediction modes in the H.264 encoding stage.”)).8 Thus, we are persuaded by Dr. Freedman’s testimony, supported by Kalva, that these terms are not synonymous, as is Patent Owner’s and its expert’s position.” slip op. at 31
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that HEVC265 is not prior art because it was published in 2013. Prelim. Resp. 24. Insofar as we determine that the ’928 application does not provide sufficient written description support for at least claim 1, and insofar as no other patent or application in the priority chain of the ’274 patent was filed before 2013 (see Pet. 19), Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing as to this claim. As we preliminarily conclude that Petitioner demonstrates that it is more likely than not to prevail on its challenge to independent claim 1 based on lack of written description support, we institute review on all challenged claims on all grounds set forth in the Petition, including Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness challenges to claims 1–4 and 6 applying HEVC265. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1354; PGS, 891 F.3d at 1360.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“F. Anticipation and Obviousness Challenges Based on HEVC265 Petitioner contends that claims 1–4 and 6 are anticipated by, or alternatively, rendered obvious in view of HEVC265. Pet. 49–52. Patent Owner argues that HEVC265 is not prior art because it was published in 2013. Prelim. Resp. 24. Insofar as we determine that the ’928 application does not provide sufficient written description support for at least claim 1, and insofar as no other patent or application in the priority chain of the ’274 patent was filed before 2013 (see Pet. 19), Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing as to this claim. As we preliminarily conclude that Petitioner demonstrates that it is more likely than not to prevail on its challenge to independent claim 1 based on lack of written description support, we institute review on all challenged claims on all grounds set forth in the Petition, including Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness challenges to claims 1–4 and 6 applying HEVC265. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1354; PGS, 891 F.3d at 1360.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,122,274 - Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00093 · APJ Ken B Barrett · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–10, 14, 15, and 18–25 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 7, 11–13, 16, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Petitioner contends: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “POSA”)] at the time of the earliest claimed filing date of the ’614 Patent would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, or a related/equivalent field and at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in electronic payment systems. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–6). Patent Owner affirmatively states that it does not dispute Petitioner’s asserted educational background of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed number of years of experience, instead contending that “the claims are patentable regardless of the number of years of work experience a POSA would have had.” Id. (citing Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 49–58). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction disputes to find that Petitioners have failed to satisfy their burden of proof.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner goes on to state its agreement with Petitioner’s proposed construction for the “identifying” limitation (id. at 9) and indicate its disagreement with certain of Petitioner’s proposals (id. at 9–14). Patent Owner confirmed at the oral argument that no claim term needs to be construed to reach a dispositive issue. Tr. 33:23–34:5. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes.” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“All of the claimed method steps of claim 1 occur “at the mobile device” (element 1.1), and the method includes a step of enabling user interaction with the user interface to complete the vending transaction (element 1.9). Id. at 46:61–65, 47:24–28. Claim 1 does not recite completing the purchase. The ’614 patent describes a commercial transaction completed at the payment accepting unit (i.e. the vending machine), not at the mobile device. Ex. 1001, 7:15–19; see also id. at 16:46–50; 17:57–59; 19:17–20; 19:35–38. We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that the claimed method does not require completing or conducting the transaction, but only enabling the completion of the transaction. On this complete record, we are persuaded that the elements block quoted above recite the concept of identifying a merchant and enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant. See Pet. 20 (arguing that the claimed method “is no less abstract than a customer noticing a store, making a purchase, and receiving a receipt.”); Pet. Reply 5 (arguing that the claim describes “nothing more than a customer noticing and identifying a store amongst multiple stores based on the unique visual image of that store, entering the store and communicating with the merchant, making a purchase, and receiving a receipt—all while using conventional tools.”). In particular, claim 1 recites a step for identifying a merchant based on its advertised presence—identifying a nearby vending machine that is available to accept payment from a mobile payment application, with that identifying involving the broadcasting of predefined radio messages.8 Claim 1 also recites steps for enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant— establishing a communication connection between the user’s device and the vending machine; displaying an interface that allows a user to select a vending machine, to trigger payment for the vending transaction, and to enable the completion of the transaction; and updating the user interface after receiving information from the vending machine regarding the transaction (which, as indicated by dependent claim 3, may be information indicating that the vending transaction was completed). Our slight revision of the abstract idea from what we previously stated in our Institution Decision does not impact the patentability analysis. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptMixed
“As discussed above, the Specification indicates that the short-range communication between the vending machine and mobile device can be not only conventional technologies such as Bluetooth, near-field communication (NFC), and radio frequency identification (RFID), but also could be “any wired or wireless technology that could be used to communicate a small distance (approximately a hundred feet or closer) that is known.” Ex. 1001, 9:57–67. The Specification ties that technology to the “broadcast” in claim 1 (id. at 47:2–5). For example, the Specification explains that “[e]ach adapter module 100 [of the vending machine] advertises its presence by broadcasting signals (advertising broadcast signals) to mobile devices in the zones 102, 104, 106.” Id. at 10:43–45. “The outermost range is the Bluetooth range 106 . . . [and] is the area in which the adapter module 100 is able to broadcast its presence.” Id. at 18:29–33. Further, Dr. Shamos testified that the Bluetooth protocol requires that two devices wishing to interact with each other identify themselves to each other. Ex. 1030, 102:3– 24. Dr. Shamos also testified that the Low prior art reference discloses that a vending machine identifies itself to the user. Id. at 100:9–20; see Ex. 1007, 2:25–28 (Low stating that, “in some embodiments, multiple machines may send their unique identifiers, such that the user is able to select one or more machines to purchase from.”). Thus, the abstract idea of identifying a merchant is implemented by nothing more than well-known, routine, and conventional wireless communications.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 10,891,614 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,891,614 - Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · PGR2022-00035 · APJ Ken B Barrett · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any of claims 1–17 was unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that, if unrebutted, it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’580 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or another degree related to electromechanical systems, as well as at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in electronic payment systems.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that, “[u]nless otherwise noted, Petitioners submit that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning since the claim terminology appears to be the same as that used in the [Multi-Drop Bus] protocol.” Pet. 28. Patent Owner does not propose any constructions, asserting that “the Board need not reach any claim constructions in order to deny this petition.” Prelim. Resp. 12. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“in Anderson of a mobile device making, or the receipt from a mobile device of, a request to access peripheral device-generated signals. See Prelim. Resp. 17–24; see, e.g., id. at 17 (“Petitioners point to no evidence that any external device in Anderson ever requests access to the signals generated by the peripheral.”). We find this argument persuasive. Petitioner, in the section for “receiving” limitation 1.5(f), cites paragraph 44 of Anderson several times. See Pet. 36–39. That paragraph concludes with the statement: The IC 125 may also include a modem (not shown) to display content on external devices such as cellular phones via cellular network or any other network know[n] in the art. Thus, in one implementation, a user may receive nutritional information or balance information on his cell phone. Ex. 1005 ¶ 44. That is a disclosure of data flowing to the cell phone in the form of content to display, and it is ambiguous as to what component could be said to have requested that data flow. Limitation 1.5(f) recites data flow in the opposite direction, from the mobile device, and pertains to a specific message—“a request to access signals generated by the first peripheral device.” Ex. 1001, 53:22–24. Petitioner does not explain adequately how the disclosure in Anderson’s paragraph 44 could support a finding that there was received, from the cell phone, a request to access signals generated by a peripheral device. See, e.g., Pet. 36–37 (quoting Anderson’s paragraph 44).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,074,580 - Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · PGR2021-00077 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 101; claims 2–27 were not shown unpatentable because the other challenges were deficient.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in identity, transaction, and telecommunication solutions.” slip op. at 12
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“As can be seen from claim 1 above, all of the claimed method steps occur “at the mobile device” and the final step is to enable completion of a cashless transaction. Claim 1 does not recite completing the purchase. The ’833 patent describes that any commercial transaction is completed at the automatic retail machine, not at the mobile device. Ex. 1001, 11:5–9; see also id. at 21:4–11, 22:18–20, 23:53–61, 30:25–27. We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that the claimed method does not require completing or conducting the transaction, but only enabling the completion of the transaction. On this complete record, we are persuaded that the elements italicized above recite the concept of obtaining authorization for a purchase and enabling completion of a cashless transaction, prior to user selection of any items or services. See Pet. 22–23 (arguing that the claimed method “is effectively no different than a person entering a store, the store checking the customer’s available credit (or calling a bank to do so) and when the customer decides on the item, completing the purchase”); Pet. Reply 5–6 (arguing that the claim recites “obtaining payment authorization and performing a financial transaction, the same as a person entering a store, the store checking the customer’s available credit (or calling a bank to do so) and, when the customer decides on the item, allowing the purchase”). In particular, claim 1 recites steps for obtaining authorization prior to user selection of any items or services — steps of identifying the automatic retail machine, obtaining a request from the electronic payment device, sending the request to a server, and obtaining from the server an authorization grant. Claim 1 also recites steps for enabling the completion of a purchase (i.e., cashless transaction) — detecting a trigger condition and sending the authorization grant to the electronic payment device. Our slight revision of the abstract idea from what we previously stated in our Institution Decision does not impact the patentability analysis. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 18
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“We are not persuaded. Patent Owner’s arguments rest on the alleged novelty of the abstract idea itself, not the “specific limitation beyond the judicial exception,” i.e., the additional elements. “[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90. “The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89 (emphasis added). Patent Owner and Dr. Shamos do not identify, and we cannot find, anything in the claim suggesting that the mobile device, server, or automated retail device (i.e., the additional elements) are more than generic components. Indeed, the ’833 patent’s specification demonstrates that these elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional to the industry. Ex. 1001, 2:23–29, 37–42, 3:25–38 (explaining that Offer “teaches permitting the cashless utilization of a vending machines via a communications service, such as a cellular telephone;” Khan teaches an application on a user’s “personal trusted device” used to effectuate cashless purchases; and Carlson teaches “a system and a method for using a portable consumer device such as a mobile phone for payments and the like,” the method including prompting a user to select, from his mobile device, a product for purchase at a vending machine, after/if the user is authorized to make the purchase, and sending an authorization response to the vending machine from a “remote payment server”).” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At the institution stage, we determined that no claim term required explicit construction. Inst. Dec. 35–37. Petitioner does not challenge our determination or otherwise advance its claim constructions in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner does not advance any explicit claim construction. PO Resp. 7–13. Regarding the identifying limitation, Patent Owner indicates that it is “undisputed between the parties that the claims require automatically determining the identity of the specific automatic retail machine based on an electronic transmission received from an electronic payment device of that automatic retail machine.” Id. at 7–8 (emphasis in original, citing Ex. 2018, 3; Ex. 2016 ¶ 68). Patent Owner submits that Petitioner’s constructions for each of the obtaining, authorization, and payment limitations should be rejected “for lacking accordance with the plain meaning of the claim in view of the specification” or “ignor[ing] the plain meaning of the term.” Id. at 9, 12, 13. As to the detecting limitation, Patent Owner argues that certain prior art asserted in the grounds in the Petition fails to teach the term as construed. Id. at 9. We determine that we need not expressly construe these claim terms” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,719,833 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,719,833 - Tiz Inc. D/B/A Provi v. Jason K. SmithAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 23, 2022 · CBM2020-00029 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable as being directed to ineligible subject matter.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Skill in the Art Based on the full trial record, including our review of the ’585 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’585 patent and cited reference materials, we agree with Dr. Min that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in electrical engineering, computer science or computer networking, and at least 2 years working experience designing communication systems.” See Ex. 1008 ¶ 21. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art.2 See generally PO Resp. 2 In opposing Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner states that “the Board should modify its definition of person of ordinary skill in the art,” Opp. Exclude 5 n.1, but never proposes a different definition and does not dispute Petitioner’s definition in its Response or Sur-Reply.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner does not propose any explicit constructions for any claim terms. See Pet. 44. Patent Owner also does not propose any explicit constructions for any claim terms. See PO. Resp. We determine that no explicit construction is necessary in order to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 19
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“items by collecting, analyzing, and transmitting information related to inventory, promotions, and particular sellers” is not an abstract idea because it “requires multiple steps that may or may not be implicated (collecting, analyzing, and transmitting) for information from multiple sources that may or may not be used (inventory, promotions, distributors, i.e., ‘particular sellers’).” PO Resp. 33–34. Contrary to Patent Owner’s position, we do not agree that this abstract idea (or the claims) requires a complex or complicated, multi-step process. Rather, the claims are directed to the collecting, analyzing, and transmitting of information. Claim 1, for example, requires only a list and inventory order of “one or more products” (i.e., the claim may be satisfied with only a single product). The Federal Circuit has explained that, generally, “claims focused on ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ are directed to an abstract idea.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “Information as such is an intangible,” hence abstract, and “collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), [i]s within the realm of abstract ideas.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (citing cases). Thus, even assuming that different types of information may be implicated by a claim limitation, the fact remains that the type or source of information, e.g., inventory, promotions, distributors,” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 10,467,585 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power · PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,467,585 - 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 - PTAB · Dec 17, 2021 · PGR2021-00093 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–25 on all petition grounds after finding the § 101 challenge to claim 1 met the institution threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Fintiv sets forth the factors that we weigh in determining whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution of the post-grant patent review proceeding here under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). See Fintiv, Paper 11, 5–6. These factors are: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. “[T]he Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Because the claims at issue here, in particular claim 1, differ from the March 2015 amended claims of the ’859 patent and the August 2014 amended claims of the ’296 patent (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 46:59–47:34), we are not persuaded that the cited prosecution history equally applies to the claims here. In particular, we note that claim 1, which we discuss in the analysis below, does not recite a first transceiver corresponding to a short-range communication mode and a second transceiver corresponding to a long-range communication mode, and does not specify whether a first or second transceiver perform certain actions recited in the claim. Id. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 19), claim 1 of the ’614 patent more but claim 1 does not specify whether it is long or short range and merely recites it being used to establish a connection for the exchange of information between a mobile device and a payment accepting unit in some of the claimed steps. Id. Thus, considering Becton, Dickinson factors (a) and (d), we are not persuaded that the same or substantially the same arguments concerning § 101 were previously presented to the Office. Because we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments with respect to § 101 were not previously presented to the Office, we need not address part two of the Advanced Bionics framework with respect to those arguments.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A [person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a related/equivalent field and at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in electronic payment systems. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–6). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’614 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 22
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionInstituted
“Ex. 1001, 46:61–47:34. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the limitations above recite the concept of identifying a merchant and making a purchase from the merchant. In particular, claim 1 recites steps for identifying payment accepting units (i.e., a merchant) — limitations 1.2– 1.7.1. Claim 1 also recites steps for conducting the purchase —limitations 1.7.2–1.11. Based on the current record, we find that identifying a merchant and making a purchase from the merchant is a commercial interaction, a sales activity. It falls within the enumerated “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,891,614
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.