- PTAB · Jun 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00405 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review on the petition’s challenges and granted Micron’s motion to join IPR2022-00999, with its grounds and schedule unchanged.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“instituted in IPR2022-00999 (“999 IPR”) based on a petition filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”). 999 IPR, Papers 1, 11. In this proceeding, Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas LLC (collectively “Petitioner”) concurrently filed a Petition (Paper 1) and a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3) seeking to be joined as a petitioner in the 999 IPR. Petitioner represents that Samsung, the petitioner in the 999 IPR, does not oppose joinder. Motion 2. Patent Owner did not file an opposition to the Motion.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,232,054 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Open Text Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00124 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 7–10, 12, and 15–18 on all asserted grounds; Morris-based grounds met the institution threshold, while Capalik-based grounds did not.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“projected statutory deadline, the Board generally has weighed this fact in favor of exercising authority to deny institution.” Fintiv at 9. The parties agree that, according to median time-to-trial statistics in the Western District of Texas, where the related litigation is pending, the expected trial date for the related litigation is mid-July 2024. Pet. 70; Prelim. Resp. 9. This is generally consistent with the currently scheduled trial date of August 19, 2024. See Ex. 2007, 9 (District Court Order Granting Third Amended Scheduling Order); Prelim. Resp. 9–10. Although Petitioner contends that the complexity of the related litigation is likely to delay the trial further, the currently scheduled date is already about two months later than the deadline for the Board to issue a final written decision. See Pet. 71. This time difference is sufficient for this factor to weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution, and we need not speculate whether a further trial delay in the related litigation is likely. We accordingly treat this factor as weighing against exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Under § 325(d), we apply a two-part analysis, first assessing whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, and, if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. See Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 16
- BurdenInstitutedInstituted
“3. Summary In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that independent claims 1, 8, and 16 would have been obvious over Morris alone as well as over Petitioner’s proposed combination of Morris and van Oorschot. Claims 2–4, 9, 10, and 12 depend from claims 1 or 8. Having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments asserting that claims 2, 4, 9, 10, and 12 would have been obvious over Morris alone as well as Petitioner’s arguments asserting that claims 2– 4, 9, 10, and 12 would have been obvious over Morris in combination with van Oorschot, (see Pet. 25–30, 32–35), we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions as to these dependent claims.” slip op. at 39
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“On the record before us, at this stage of the proceeding, there does not appear to be any claim construction dispute. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim term requires express interpretation at this time to resolve any controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,578,045 - Netflix, Inc v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2023 · IPR2023-00182 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Netflix did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–2, 7–9, 11–12, 15, and 26–28 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Both parties support their proposals with testimony by their respective experts. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 41–44; Ex. 2017 ¶ 28. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“previously construed certain terms for the ’451 patent claims, i.e., for an ancestor of the subject ’819 patent that shares a substantially common written description. Pet. 18–19; Prelim. Resp. 6–8 (citing Ex. 1014 (claim construction order in cases involving Microsoft and Apple)). Patent Owner advocates that we adopt such prior constructions in this proceeding, and Petitioner states that it “does not necessarily agree that the prior district court constructions are correct, but the constructions are nonetheless satisfied by [the asserted] Grounds.” Prelim. Resp. 6–8; Pet. 18–19. Patent Owner also states that the Board panel in the 1125 IPR adopted the same constructions for “show structure of nodes,” “node,” and “interactively variable duration information,” which Patent Owner asserts also appear in relevant claims of the ’819 patent. Prelim. Resp. 8. Since both parties purport to apply these constructions, we do as well for purposes of this Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). We have thus reviewed the court’s claimconstruction order, and adopt its construction of the following terms for purposes of this Decision. First, we construe “node,” which is recited in multiple claims, as “an identifier of a resource that includes an address to the resource and the duration for which the resource’s content is to be presented by default.” See Ex. 1014, 16–17; Pet. 18; Prelim. Resp. 7. Second, we construe “show structure of nodes,” which is recited in challenged independent claims 1 and 26, as “a structure that is arranged for the display of content by specifying one or more paths through a plurality of nodes. The show structure of nodes specifies the duration of any display,” but there is no durational requirement separate from the construction of “node.” See Ex. 1014, 2–13; Pet. 18; Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Third, we construe “interactively variable duration information,” which is recited in challenged independent claims 1 and 26, as “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1014, 22–23; Pet. 19; Prelim. Resp. 7–8.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“With this understanding of Escobar, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument. That is, independent claim 1 defines a method in which presentation of the “advertisement content” occurs in connection with automatic presentation of other content, namely “content . . . presented . . . in accordance with said show structure.” Ex. 1001, 17:53–56, 17:65–67. Escobar’s two-level gateway structure is not consistent with this requirement, and neither Petitioner nor Dr. Houh provides sufficient explanation of how Escobar’s advertisement insertions are otherwise presented in connection with the automatic presentation of the objects/assets. Because Petitioner does not sufficiently show that this aspect of the claim is disclosed by, or would have been obvious over, Escobar, we conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Escobar alone or over Escobar in combination with Rege.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,606,819 - Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00291 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 and 15–17 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not disclose the construed network-based portal residing on a server side of a network.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“network-based portal” as recited in the challenged claims is sufficiently broad to encompass residing at either a client or server side of a network, as Petitioner contends, or is limited to residing at the server side, as Patent Owner contends. On the preliminary record, we declined to adopt Patent Owner’s exclusion of residing at a client side when extending our invitation to the parties to elaborate on their positions. Dec. 11. But we are mindful that “the Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced its initial inclinations were wrong.” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 1 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 19:63, 20:4, 20:6, 20:11, 20:15–16, 20:21–22, 20:29–30, 20:42–43, 20:46–47; see PO Resp. 19 (Patent Owner contending that, because of the repeated recitation of “network-based portal” throughout the body of independent claim 1, the “preamble therefore breath[e]s life and meaning into claim 1”). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects multiple users to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 36. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing applies to the claims that depend from claim 1 because they inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we also conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 2–5, 15, or 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis; that any of claims 7–9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Loveland; nor that” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 10,708,727 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,708,727 - Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00202 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness grounds did not show a network-based portal residing on the server side of a network.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). Our evaluation also necessarily remains cognizant that “[i]n an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic 3 Petitioner filed a second Declaration by Dr. Almeroth after institution (such that it was not available on the preliminary record), but that Declaration is provided primarily as supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to address objections by Patent Owner to the authenticity of various other exhibits. Ex. 1038 ¶ 2. Dr. Almeroth’s second Declaration otherwise merely incorporates Dr. Almeroth’s “technical opinions” by reference to his first Declaration, without providing any further facts or expressing any further opinions that bear on the merits, including claim construction. Id. ¶ 1. Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 24. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–75. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 1 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 20:3, 20:11, 20:20, 20:23, 20:29, 20:31, 20:48, 20:54; see PO Resp. 19 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 1). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects clients to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 34. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 11 and 19. See Pet. 55–57 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 11 relying substantially on analysis of claim 1), 59–60 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 19 relying substantially on analysis of claim 1). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 1– 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,142,810 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,142,810 - Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00295 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33–67 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed server-side network-based portal.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The issue before us is therefore well-defined, namely whether a “network-based portal” as recited in the challenged claims is sufficiently broad to encompass residing at either a client or server side of a network, as Petitioner contends, or is limited to residing at the server side, as Patent Owner contends. On the preliminary record, we declined to adopt Patent Owner’s exclusion of residing at a client side when extending our invitation to the parties to elaborate on their positions. Dec. 23–25. But we are mindful that “the Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 7 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 21:53, 21:58, 22:2, 22:14–15, 22:19, 22:20–21, 22:27, 22:33, 22:38–39; see PO Resp. 28 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 7). Under our adopted construction, Petitioner does not show that the combination of Tanigawa and Hullfish meets the claim requirements of a “network-based portal.” That is, Petitioner’s reliance on a client-resident interface to meet the claim’s recitation of a “network-based portal” is incompatible with our construction of that phrase. We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa and Hullfish. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 38 and 46. See Pet. 64 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 38 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7), 65–67 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 46 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 7, 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 38–41, 46, 49, 51–53, 55, 57, 58, or 64– 66 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa and Hullfish; that any of claims 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, or 54 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa, Hullfish, and Loveland; that any of claims 37, 42, 56, 59–63, or 67 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa, Hullfish, and Takahashi; or that claim 45 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tanigawa, Hullfish, Loveland, and Takahashi.” slip op. at 36
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 60–85. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). Our evaluation also necessarily remains cognizant that “[i]n an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. 3 Petitioner filed a second Declaration by Dr. Almeroth after institution (such that it was not available on the preliminary record), but that Declaration is provided primarily as supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to address objections by Patent Owner to the authenticity of various other exhibits. Ex. 1039 ¶ 2. Dr. Almeroth’s second Declaration otherwise merely incorporates Dr. Almeroth’s “technical opinions” by reference to his first Declaration, without providing any further facts or expressing any further opinions that bear on the merits, including claim construction. Id. ¶ 1. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326– 27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,492,038 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,492,038 - Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00294 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33–67 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not establish that Diacakis disclosed the construed server-side network-based portal.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“entitled to no weight because it “repeats the [Patent Owner Response] nearly verbatim,” “appears to contain opinions he did not develop,” and “is contradicted by Dr. Rouskas’s own deposition testimony.” Reply 3–4. Although Petitioner makes multiple allegations of deficiencies in Dr. Rouskas’s direct testimony, none of these allegations is sufficiently developed with specific examples. First, we disagree that mere verbatim duplication between an expert declaration and an attorney brief defines “a classic example of a cursory expert declaration the Board disregards.” See id. at 3. The Board’s concern is rather whether expert testimony “cite[s] to any additional supporting evidence or provide[s] any technical reasoning to support [its] statement[s].” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential); see also id. at 16 (“Dr. Jones offers only a verbatim restatement of the assertion being supported, without any supporting evidence or technical reasoning” (emphasis added)). As Patent Owner asserts, “Petitioner fail[s] to provide a single example of how Dr. Rouskas’s testimony is ‘cursory or unsupported.’” Sur-reply 1.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“5. Summary As we note above, we find certain of Patent Owner’s arguments adequately rebutted by Petitioner, such that we do not consider them in our assessment. Nevertheless, Patent Owner retains compelling arguments for its proposed construction, supported by expert testimonial evidence, including dictionary definitions and the ’038 patent specification’s reference to a “portal or a gateway.” We find such references more compellingly refer to “portal” and “gateway” as synonyms rather than alternatives. In addition, Patent Owner provides convincing evidence and argument that rebuts the concern raised by the Board at institution whether Patent Owner’s proposed construction would exclude preferred embodiments. Petitioner, who bears the overall burden, addresses that concern only with attorney argument, which we accord less weight. In light of these considerations, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 7 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 21:53, 21:58, 22:2, 22:14–15, 22:19, 22:20–21, 22:27, 22:33, 22:38–39; see PO Resp. 21 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 7). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects clients to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 34–35. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 38 and 46. See Pet. 55–56 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 38 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7), 57–58 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 46 relying substantially on analysis of claim 7). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 7, 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 38–41, 46, 49, 51–53, 55, 57, 58, or 64–66 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis; that any of claims 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, or 54 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Loveland; that any of claims 37, 42, 56, 59–63, or 67 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Takahashi; or that claim 45 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis, Loveland, and Takahashi.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 10,492,038 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,492,038 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00669 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the six asserted combinations of Bruce and Hancock with Meadows, Knockeart, and/or Moles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation, although the conclusions reached in the decision would be the same even if Patent Owner’s proposal was adopted.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Claim terms need only be construed 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 states, “[n]o claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. PO Resp. 3–4. For purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms. D.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“not a communications device is a mobile wireless communications device, the reference states that the system can be used with a “landline or a mobile cellular telephone subscriber.” Ex. 1006, 3:49; see also Ex. 1006, 5:58–60 (“[t]elephone calls are primarily originated from either traditional fixed location landline telephones or mobile wireless telephones”); Ex. 1006, 5:66–6:3 (“[t]o identify the geographical location of the caller . . . several 6 Patent Owner argues that Hancock does not teach this claim requirement, and we have previously found that Hancock does not so teach. PO Resp. 15 (citing Van Essen Decl. ¶ 56); Google LLC v. Traxcell Techs., LLC, IPR2021-01004, Paper 7 at 18 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2021). techniques can be used depending on the particular telephone (i.e., landline or mobile telephone) originating the call”). The same system is used in Bruce for both fixed and mobile devices, and the same telephone number (411) is used whether fixed or mobile. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 1, 3:63–66, 5:56–58, 5:63–67; Braasch Decl. ¶ 60). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on a patent to Karp, et al. as background art, to confirm that it was well known that the phone number of a caller is used to identify whether or not a call is on a mobile phone, and that the use of Automatic Number Identification (ANI) is not limited to fixed landlines. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1009, Fig. 11B, 12:20–22; Braasch Decl. ¶ 70); Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:39–44, 12:24–27).7 The record further includes support for Petitioner’s contention in the form of declarant testimony that explains, “[a] POSITA would have recognized that to select an appropriate location system 17 for a communication received over a landline or wireless network, the switch 16 or the location system 17 would first identify whether a request was made from a landline or a wireless device.” Braasch Decl. ¶ 70 (cited in the Petition at page 24); see also id. ¶ 71 (explaining that the determination would be made even if the incoming call uses a landline or a modem). We are persuaded by this evidence and credit the Braasch testimony in this regard.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence summarized above (which we adopt) and determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combination of Bruce and Hancock, and the preponderance of the evidence establishes that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make that combination.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 9,918,196 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,918,196 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01552 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the six combinations of references listed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation, although the conclusions reached in the decision would be the same even if Patent Owner’s proposal was adopted.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Claim terms need only be construed 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 states, “[n]o claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. PO Resp. 3–4. For purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms. D.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. The Combination of Bruce and Hancock Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the geographic location-based systems of Bruce and Hancock, resulting in a combination that would have rendered obvious, for example, independent claim 1. Pet. 14–19. Petitioner first argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add to the Bruce system, the capability of accessing routing information via the Internet, as disclosed in Hancock. Pet. 15–17. Petitioner cites the fact that one embodiment of Bruce uses a computer with a modem to allow a user to obtain directions from the system, and that providing such access via the Internet, as disclosed in Hancock, would have provided well-known advantages of higher data rates, storage capacity, and additional Internet services. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 1:38–40; Ex. 1008, 42:38–42; Ex. 1011, 24:16–19, 25:1–7, 27:39–67, 32:32–41; Braasch Decl. ¶¶ 46–49). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to improve Bruce by providing more flexibility and variety in the ways for entering a destination, for which directions are requested, as disclosed in Hancock. Pet. 17–18. For example, Hancock discloses the ability to enter the names of businesses, to specify specific distances to destinations, and to use menus of possible destination locations. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 2:40–43, 8:2–3; Ex. 1011, 8:66–9:3, 13:7–15, 28:49–29:1, 30:12– 14; Braasch Decl. ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to improve Bruce by using Hancock’s improved methods of formatting requests for directions via the use of data packets. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1011, 27:27–39, 27:64–67, 28:58–65; Braasch Decl. ¶¶ 52–54). Patent Owner does not specifically respond to these arguments. See generally PO Resp. We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence summarized” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As to the above claims, Patent Owner repeats its arguments with respect to claim 1 (which, as discussed above, are not persuasive), and submits additional arguments directed to claims 5, 10, and 11. PO Resp. 21–23. In regard to claim 5, Patent Owner argues that “PSTN” in the claims means “a plurality of PSTNs which service to provide location of fixed location phones,” and that Bruce provides only one PSTN. Id. at 22 (citing Van Essen Decl. ¶ 83). This argument is unpersuasive as not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Reply 15. For claims 10 and 11, Patent Owner argues that the disclosure in Bruce providing for searches for establishments “in the proximity of the caller” is not a teaching of searches for nearby businesses because “[t]he caller is distinct from ‘business.’” Id. at 23 (citing Van Essen Decl. ¶¶ 85–86) (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded by this argument, because a nearby business is within the proximity of a caller. Reply 16. We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence summarized above (which we adopt) and we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bruce and Hancock.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,918,196 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,918,196 - Netflix, Inc. v. Robocast, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00081 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Netflix had not shown a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 37, or 38 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’451 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We do not see a substantial difference between the parties’ proposals. Although the proposals differ in certain respects, they do not differ in ways that affect our decision to deny institution of the proceeding. Both proposals include baccalaureate degrees and experience in generally related fields, with both parties indicating that additional education or experience could compensate for some lack in the other. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“we consider whether that construction was intended to encompass varying durations during the creating step or the displaying step. In its opinion, the Microsoft court observed that the defendants in that case argued that “before created,” and that “the ‘duration information’ is a parameter that the user can then interact with in order to vary the display of each resource.” Ex. 1014, 22. Patent Owner, the court continued, argued that “all that is required is for the user to maintain control over the actual presentation of the resource during the ‘displaying’ step, and that no duration information need be provided during the ‘creating a show structure of nodes’ step.” Id. at 22–23. The Microsoft court “agree[d] with [Patent Owner] that the user should be able to vary the duration of the content during show structure playback. This is the ‘interactive’ component of the claim.” Id. at 23; see also Prelim. Resp. 29 (arguing that this reasoning supports Patent Owner’s position that “the claim language expressly requires that the end user be able to ‘vary said duration’ for how long resource content currently ‘is being displayed’ to the user in ‘accordance with said show structure’ to which the resource belongs”). Here, the Microsoft court expressly states that the duration is varied during show structure playback, which is a clear reference to claim 1’s step of “displaying a content corresponding to each of said resources automatically in accordance with said show structure.” The Microsoft court “also finds that some duration information must be provided when the show structure of nodes is created,” that “‘parameter’ is a helpful concept for construction,” and that “the ‘duration information’ may be understood to be synonymous with a ‘parameter,’ as that timing information is the variable that will specify how long a particular content will be displayed.” Ex. 1014, 23. Thus, the Microsoft court construed claim 1 to require providing a variable duration parameter in the creating” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“As noted above, the Microsoft court construed “interactively variable duration information” to mean “a parameter specifying how long a content is to be displayed by default before a subsequent content is displayed, where the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” Ex. 1014, 22. The construction itself suggests that the duration information is varied during display, because it is in the context of resources being displayed sequentially and “the viewer of the content can change the parameter.” As to Escobar, Petitioner contends that “[w]hen playing decision lists/timelines in the authoring tool using Button 174 (invoking subroutine E), the user is the viewer of the content.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:40–45). Thus, Petitioner appears to contend that, during the process of creating a show structure, the creator is a viewer if the creator can view the edited content corresponding to a node as the show structure is being created. Here, Petitioner would satisfy the “viewer” aspect of the Microsoft court’s construction by pointing to a creator viewing a piece of the show structure during the creating step, although Escobar does not teach that the creator can vary the duration of content while viewing it or that durations can be varied while a show structure (as opposed to a node being created) is being displayed in the displaying step, as discussed in more detail below.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,155,451
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.