• Aylo Freesites Ltd v. Wellcomemat, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2024 · IPR2024-01101 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claim 17 on all five grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on Gupta and Vasilevsky with Logan.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to challenged claim 17 in the ’286 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claim 17 of the ’286 patent on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

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

    “The USPTO Director has issued “binding agency guidance” for application of the Fintiv factors. Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post- Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”), 3.12 Pursuant to the Guidance Memo, “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Id. (citing Sotera). Petitioner has filed a Sotera stipulation providing that: Petitioner and its real parties-in-interest will not pursue in the related district court proceeding where Petitioner is a defendant (WellcomeMat, LLC v. Aylo Holdings Sarl et al., No. 2:23-cv-00483-JRG (E.D. Tex.)) an invalidity challenge of claim 17 based on “any ground that [Petitioner] raised or” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “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) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions based on the present record.” slip op. at 10

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

    “B. Claim Construction For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner and Patent Owner both advocate for the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the claim terms without further analysis. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 72–73); Prelim. Resp. 14–15. On the present record, we determine that no explicit construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this case. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties are invited to address claim construction in their briefs. III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) - FINTIV Institution of an inter partes review is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,307,286
• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2024-01023 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 32–34, 38, 39, 66–68, 72, 73, 130, 131, 134, and 135 on all petitioned grounds because Roku showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’236 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 32–34, 38, 39, 66–68, 72, 73, 130, 131, 134, and 135 on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).1” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “1 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that” slip op. at 2

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

    “on claim construction and disregard everything else.8 The parties direct our attention in particular to the proper construction of an “independent” second root of trust in context of the recited claim limitation: “a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust.” We refer to this disputed claim limitation hereafter as the “independent authentication” limitation. Petitioner proposes the following construction: “authentication processes that are performed by independent roots of trust—i.e., roots of trust with trust determinations that are independent of the outcome of the other.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:16–38 (“the secondary CA server follows rules (e.g., CA messages) of the primary CA server to manage a secondary subscriber management system”)); see also id. at 5 (“‘independent’ . . . identifies how the first and second roots of trust” “arrive at their first and second authentication determinations, without relying on the output of the other”). Petitioner also asserts that Patent Owner’s patentability argument hinges on a construction of “independent” such that “‘independent’ as used to modify the first and second roots of trust must be construed as independently controlled,” which Petitioner asserts is inconsistent with the ’236 patent claim language and specification. Id. at 1. Patent Owner, for its part, denies that it is advocating for a construction where the two roots of trust are “independently controlled.” Sur-Reply 3. Patent Owner does not offer a construction of the “independent authentication” limitation, citing an unilluminating description where “the client authentication in the secondary security domain is completely independent from the client authentication in the 8 The parties are reminded of the Board’s sanction authority for non-compliance. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(6); 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a)(1). primary security domain.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:33–35). On the present record, we determine that no explicit construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this case. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties are ordered to propose and support a specific construction of the “independent authentication” limitation in their briefs, with reference to the following claim language: 130[c.ii] the conditional access server authenticates clients of the conditional access server through a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust. The parties are ordered to analyze the relevant claim language, and cite to the specification and prosecution history in support of their claim construction where applicable, including the language of counterpart “independent authentication” limitations recited in claims 32 and 66 if there are material differences. The parties are further ordered to address the question of whether an “independent” “second authentication process” and “second root of trust” requires a conditional access server that manages a secondary subscriber management system where a “client” of the conditional access server does not subscribe to the primary subscriber management system. See Ex. 1001, 8:3–38 (stating “authentication methods used by the secondary CA server in the secondary subscriber management system are independent from those used by the primary CA server”).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” American Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir.2009)). “[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir.1991)). We find that, at this stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, Petitioner provides sufficient evidence and argument to establish a reasonable likelihood that Russ anticipates the challenged claims of the ’236 patent.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,236
• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2024 · IPR2024-01024 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 48–50, 57, 82–84, 91, 116–118, 125, and 140–142; the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Russ, but not obviousness over Russ.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” American Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). “[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). We conclude that, at this stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence and argument to establish a reasonable likelihood that Russ anticipates the challenged claims of the ’236 patent.” slip op. at 11

  • Parallel petitionsOther

    “5 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set forth constructions for claim language invoking § 112 ¶ 6.” Id. at 1–2 (citing Consol. Tr. Pr. Guide, 59–61). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s Notice. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and decline to exercise our discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(c). 6 Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner does not show that Dr. Wasilewski “qualifies as a POSITA,” his physics degree, background, and experience, in systems involving multi-media content distribution and management and/or related fields, including as an inventor of over 50 patents in fields that include encryption, MPEG systems, and transfer of digital content, including Russ (Ex. 1005), along with extensive engineering experience in related fields, is more than adequate on this preliminary record to qualify Dr. Wasilewski as an artisan of ordinary skill. Compare Prelim. Resp. 5, with Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19 and Ex. 1004.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be 5 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set forth constructions for claim language invoking § 112 ¶ 6.” Id. at 1–2 (citing Consol. Tr. Pr. Guide, 59–61). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s Notice. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and decline to exercise our discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(c). 6 Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner does not show that Dr. Wasilewski “qualifies as a POSITA,” his physics degree, background, and experience, in systems involving multi-media content distribution and management and/or related fields, including as an inventor of over 50 patents in fields that include encryption, MPEG systems, and transfer of digital content, including Russ (Ex. 1005), along with extensive engineering experience in related fields, is more than adequate on this preliminary record to qualify Dr. Wasilewski as an artisan of ordinary skill. Compare Prelim. Resp. 5, with Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19 and Ex. 1004. 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) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSA. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of institution, which the prior art of record supports. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7

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

    “On the present record, we determine that no explicit construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this case. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties are ordered to propose and support a specific plain meaning or other construction of the “independent authentication” limitation in their briefs, with reference to the following claim language: 140[c.ii] the conditional access server authenticates clients of the conditional access server through a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust. The parties are ordered to analyze the relevant claim language, and cite to the specification and prosecution history in support of their claim construction where applicable, including the language of counterpart “independent authentication” limitations recited in claims 48, 82, and 116 if there are material differences. The parties are further ordered to address the question of whether an “independent” “second authentication process” and “second root of trust” requires a conditional access server that manages a secondary subscriber management system where a “client” of the conditional access server does not subscribe to the primary subscriber management system. See Ex. 1001, 8:3–38 (e.g., “authentication methods used by the secondary CA server in the secondary subscriber management system are independent from those used by the primary CA server”).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,236
• Aylo Freesites Ltd v. Wellcomemat, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00710 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 13–15 and 18–20 on all five asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’286 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 13–15 and 18–20 of the ’286 patent on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

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

    “demonstrated so-called “compelling merits” in its Grounds of challenge. Pet. 5; Prelim. Resp. 47; Reply 5; Sur-Reply 4–5. The Director has clarified her Guidance Memo, such that “in circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis.” CommScope Techns. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23, 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“CommScope”). Because we determine that Fintiv factors 1–5 collectively weigh against exercising our discretion to deny institution, we do not reach the question of whether Petitioner has demonstrated “compelling merits” in support of its unpatentability challenges. Conclusion Regarding Discretionary Denial On balance, we determine that Fintiv factors 1–5 collectively weigh against exercising our discretion to deny institution. Therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of inter partes review under Section 314(a).” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “On the present record, we determine Petitioner’s argument and evidence show a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of independent claim 13 as anticipated by Gupta.” slip op. at 29

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

    “On the present record, Patent Owner’s arguments do not address Dr. Houh’s detailed testimony or Petitioner’s proposed substitution of the Internet as taught by Logan, in place of the HAN in Vasilevsky’s system. For example, the substitution of the Internet for the HAN in Vasilevsky would appear to provide the centralized media server as a server-side “video editing environment” recited in claim Limitation 13.1. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 318 (“processor and memory [] at the server-side such that the centralized media server executes software for serving clients”), 319 (“computer-readable media of Vasilevsky comprises a video editing environment in the form of software for both editing bookmarks and streaming video, executed by the centralized media server and storages”), 321 (“Logan . . . teaches implementing a television program bookmarking system using a public network, i.e., the Internet”), 322 (“Logan discloses the desirability of implementing its bookmarking system over a public network such as the Internet”), 323 (proposed “modification would have beneficially allowed more users access via a wider public network to participate in the system to add, modify and playback video bookmarks”). On the present record, Dr. Houh’s declaration testimony stands unrebutted and provides a motivation for a POSITA to combine references with a reasonable likelihood of success.” slip op. at 38

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,307,286
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbHRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2017 · IPR2016-01565 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Mylan’s rehearing request, leaving claims 6–8, 10–18, 24, and 25 uninstituted because the Petition did not show the Januvia Label and Huettner were printed publications.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “a trial is based on “the information presented in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), in an inter partes review, a petitioner may only challenge the claims of a patent based on “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” and the petitioner has the initial burden of production to show that an asserted reference is prior art to the challenged claims under a relevant subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Dec. 16. As explained in our Decision, we have often required a petitioner to make a threshold showing that the reference relied upon was publicly accessible as a printed publication prior to the effective filing date of a challenged patent to satisfy the initial burden of production. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2015-00369, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) (Paper 14) (noting that petitioner has the burden to make a threshold showing that a reference is “printed publication” prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b)); Frontier Therapeutics, LLC v. Medac Gesellschaft Für Klinische Spezialpräparate MBH, Case IPR2016-00649, slip op. at 22 (PTAB September 1, 2016) (Paper 10). We further explained that “[a] given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ ‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)); Dec. 17.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “To the extent Petitioner now argues that “the declaration testimony of Dr. Davidson and the facial indicia on Huettner are sufficient” to make a threshold showing that Huettner was publically accessible as of the relevant date (Reh’g Req. 13), we are not persuaded. We note that Dr. Davidson testifies, without elaboration, that “Huettner was published in June 2007.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Petitioner, however, did not rely on Dr. Davidson’s testimony on this issue in the Petition. Moreover, even if Dr. Davidson’s testimony had been relied on, Petitioner does not point to any evidence—nor can we discern any in Dr. Davidson’s Declaration—that would reasonably suggest that Dr. Davidson has personal knowledge as to when and how Huettner was made available to the public. Accordingly, Dr. Davidson’s conclusory declaration of Huettner’s publication date is entitled to little or no weight. See Dell, Inc. v. Selene Commc’n Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014- 01411, slip op. at 22–23 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2015) (Paper 23) (explaining that an expert declaration is not enough to prove a prior art reference’s publication date where the expert declaration merely repeats assertions made by the petitioner).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Decision on Institution, and Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, we are not persuaded that we erred in declining to institute trial on claims 6–8, 10–18, 24, and 25. Petitioner, having failed to meet its burden of providing a threshold showing that the Januvia Label and Huettner are printed publications under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that the subject matter of claims 6–8, 10–18, 24, and 25 of the ’156 patent would have been obvious over the Januvia Label, Huettner, and Mikhail or the Knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art..” slip op. at 8

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,853,156
• Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3

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

    “sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached

    “being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4

  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,398,038
• L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable

    “to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,498,419
• 3shape Medical A/S v. Sirona Dental Systems GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00481 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable: Mushabac did not anticipate claims 1–5 and 9–10, and the asserted combinations did not render claims 1–8 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that only the following claim phrase requires explicit construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (internal citation omitted)).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner provides evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is someone with a D.M.D. (Doctor of Medicine in Dentistry or Doctor of Dental Medicine) or D.D.S. (Doctor of Dental Surgery) and at least several years of experience with 3-D technology used in dental implant treatment, planning, and surgery. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 63–66). Alternatively, such a person may have a computer engineering degree or be a trained dental laboratory technician having substantial experience with 3-D technology and software applications used in dental implant treatment, planning, and surgery. Id. Patent Owner has accepted Petitioner’s definition of a POSA for purposes of this IPR. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSA in this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “2. Analysis of “optical measuring of the visible surfaces of the jaw” Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Ganz agreed under cross-examination that “Mushabac optically measures the teeth [a]nd then it uses … bone sounding to measure the surfaces of the jawbone.” Ex. 2026, 252:11–20. When directly asked where a three-dimensional optical measuring of visible surfaces of the jaw was “stipulated” in Mushabac, Dr. Ganz could not identify any passage to support that assertion made in paragraph 100 of his Declaration. Id. at 248:16–252:20. We find Dr. Ganz’s cross-examination testimony to be highly persuasive and consistent with the disclosures in Mushabac and the testimony of Dr. Erickson. For the reasons given above, we determine that Mushabac does not expressly disclose an “optical” (light-based) measurement of the “visible surfaces of the jaw” in three dimensions, as recited in claim 1 of the ’006 patent.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,319,006 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,319,006
• Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC / Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2017 · IPR2015-01903 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24, 26, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over the Advisory Committee Art and Korfhage.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “8 Petitioner relies on Dr. Valuck’s testimony (Ex. 1007 ¶ 21) to describe a POSA as having a “Bachelor’s or Doctor of Pharmacy degree and a license as a registered pharmacist with 3-5 years of relevant work experience, or a computer science undergraduate degree or equivalent work experience and work experience relating to business applications, for example, including familiarity with drug distribution procedures.” (Id.) “Alternatively, a POSA may have a blend of computer science and pharmacy drug distribution knowledge and/or experience.” (Id.) “[S]uch a POSA may have computer science education qualifications and experience relating to computerized drug distribution systems, or pharmacy education qualifications and experience relating to computerized drug distribution systems.” (Id.). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a POSA. Therefore, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s description of a POSA to our analysis in this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “13A–C as “descriptions of sample reports obtained by querying a central database having fields represented in Fig. 7.” Ex. 1001, 8:24–26 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:59–61 (also describing Figs. 13A–C as “sample reports”). The description of sample reports is hardly exclusionary of the type of ad hoc early prescription refill report described in Figure 4B, which involves generating a risk diversion report whenever a patient calls to request an early refill. Id. at Fig. 4B (406, 432, 434). Thus, we do not agree that the specification excludes the generation of ad hoc or intermittent reports from the term “periodic reports,” or refers only to reports obtained at regular frequencies or intervals, even if the term “periodic” includes such reports. To the contrary, the ’963 patent specification and prosecution history support the inclusion of ad hoc reports, such as risk diversion reports generated whenever an early prescription refill is requested, within the meaning of the term “periodic reports.”” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “the Board issued final written decisions, dated after Patent Owner’s Response, determining that the ACA was publicly accessible and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Reply 4 (citing Case IPR2015-00551, slip op. at 38 (PTAB July 27, 2016 (Paper 70))). Petitioner is correct. Therefore, we adopt our finding in IPR2015-00551 for the same reasons given therein, namely that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Exhibits 1003–1006 (the ACA) were publicly accessible to an interested POSA exercising reasonable diligence more than one year before the December 17, 2002 earliest priority date of the ’963 patent. Case IPR2015-00551, slip op. at 21–38 (PTAB July 27, 2016 (Paper 70)); 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Petitioner’s evidence of record regarding the public accessibility issue in IPR2015-00551 is also of record in the present case, and the exhibit numbers are the same, but for a few exceptions.11 See Exhibits 1003–1006, 1007 (¶ 64), 1015, 1019, 1020, 1027, 1028, 1052, and 1053.” slip op. at 16

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

    “the evidence that a POSA would have been motivated to distribute the ACA’s single, centralized computer database over multiple computers, for reasons of cost, efficiency, and the anticipated volume of prescription-related information to be received, entered, and queried. Pet. 25–30 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003, 24:21–25; Ex. 1004, 110; Ex. 1005, cover letter; Ex. 1006, 6 n.24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 78, 79, 85–87), 51–52 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 144; Ex. 1037, 276).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,731,963 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,731,963
• Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Foods, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2016-01105 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1 and 6–11 anticipated by Neilson or claims 1 and 5–11 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “October 6, 2014—the date the 2014 Complaint alleging infringement of the ’658 patent was served on Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 5, 11. It is undisputed, however, that Patent Owner did not own the ’658 patent at the time the 2014 Complaint was filed and served. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 7; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 5–7. Title to the ’658 patent was transferred to Patent Owner by an assignment executed January 25, 2016. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 9; Ex. 1030 ¶ 7, Ex. C (patent assignment). Accordingly, Patent Owner lacked standing to sue for infringement of the ’658 patent at the time the 2014 Complaint was filed and served. Paradise Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[I]n order to assert standing for patent infringement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that it held enforceable title to the patent at the inception of the lawsuit.”). The patent counts of the 2014 Complaint were jurisdictionally defective, and the defect could not be cured after the filing date of the complaint, e.g., by a subsequent assignment or by joining the patent title holder to the lawsuit. Alps S., LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co., 787 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 897 (2016) (“The party asserting patent infringement is ‘required to have legal title to the patents on the day it filed the complaint and that requirement can not be met retroactively.’”) (quoting Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 625 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). The Delaware district court was required to—and actually did— dismiss the patent infringement counts of the 2014 Complaint for lack of Article III standing. Ex. 1031 n.1 (Delaware district court order granting motion for voluntary dismissal: “the court lacks jurisdiction to make a judgment on the merits”); see also, Abraxis, 625 F.3d at 1367 (“[T]he action must be dismissed because [plaintiff] lacked standing on the day it filed the action.”); Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 402 F.3d 1198, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[I]f the original plaintiff lacked Article III initial standing, the suit must be dismissed, and the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by the addition of a party with standing, . . . nor by the subsequent purchase of an interest in the patent in suit.”) (citing Paradise, 315 F.3d at 1309). Thus, the allegation of infringement of the ’658 patent in the 2014 Complaint was not a proper federal pleading and did not trigger the one-year time period under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner was not served with a complaint properly alleging infringement of the ’658 patent until January 2016. The instant petition was filed in May 2016. Accordingly, the Petition is not time-barred under § 315(b).” slip op. at 9

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

    “unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 1 and 5–11 as unpatentable under § 103. Pet. 9. Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, institution of an inter partes review is denied.” slip op. at 2

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

    “of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner and Patent Owner offer competing constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 18–20; Prelim. Resp. 26–35. We determine that only the following claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “position.” During a mixing operation, the ’658 patent describes how the cup holder is reciprocated to move axially upward so the mixing element is in a position within the liquid-filled cup, i.e. the recited “first position,” then reciprocated downward so the mixing element is moved upward to the recited “second position” closer to the opening at the top of the cup, “to allow the blade to pass through the full contents of the cup more than one time.” Ex. 1001, 3:58–64. When the mixing element is moved upward within the cup to the second position, the weight of the splash shield must be sufficient to keep the liquid-filled cup in the cup holder. Id. at 4:3–10 (“heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the cup to overcome any upward force created by the mixing blade being moved upwardly in the cup”). The force generated by upward movement of the mixing element is not further described in the ’658 patent, although the ’658 patent provides a preferred embodiment where a splash shield weighing 5 pounds (dependent claim 5) provides sufficient downward force to perform the recited function. Id. at 4:20–23. Petitioner argues that “sufficient mass” in claim 1 should be construed in accordance with the interpretation allegedly offered by Patent Owner in the dismissed patent action: “the splash shield applies sufficient weight to the top of the cup to retain the cup in the cupholder during mixing.” Pet. 19 (no citation). Petitioner further argues that “the mass of the splash shield” limitation in claim 6 should be construed in accordance with the construction allegedly offered by Patent Owner in the dismissed patent action: “the splash shield applies sufficient weight to the top of the cup to prevent separation of the cup from the cupholder during mixing.” Id. (no citation). Patent Owner responds with a slightly different interpretation of a splash shield having a “sufficient mass”: “heavy enough to retain the vessel within the holder during relative movement of the mixing element and vessel.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:3–24; Ex. 2025 (definition of “sufficient”)). Both parties appear to agree that the ’658 patent describes the “sufficient mass” of the splash shield in functional terms as enough weight to retain the vessel or cup within the holder during mixing. Ex. 1001, 3:65– 4:23. Based on the description provided in the ’658 patent, the claim language at issue in claim 1 – “the splash shield having sufficient mass to retain the vessel within the holder during relative movement of the mixing element and vessel from the first position to the second position when liquid is present in the vessel” – is entitled to its plain and ordinary meaning: “the splash shield is heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the vessel so as to retain the vessel within the holder when the mixing element moves upwardly in the vessel from the first position to the second position when liquid is present.” See Ex. 1001, 4:3–10 (“heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the cup to overcome any upward force created by the mixing blade being moved upwardly in the cup”). The claim language in claim 6 “the mass of the splash shield preventing separation of the holder and the vessel during translation” is similarly construed to mean “the splash shield is heavy enough to create sufficient downward force on the vessel so as to prevent separation of the holder and the vessel during translation of the mixing element or holder.”” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,520,658

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.