• Askeladden L.L.C. v. Kioba Processing LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00146 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 24–31 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lauper and, alternatively, as obvious over Lauper, ISO 7816-4, and ISO 14443.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner presents the following assessment as to the level of skill in the art: As Mr. Zatkovich explains, for purposes of the ’792 Patent, a POSITA[7] would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with point-of-sale and payment processing systems, credit card and smartcard payment transactions, and industry practices and standards for processing purchase transactions and authenticating participants. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–103; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner offers claim constructions for the following terms: “smartlink module” (claims 1 and 24); “the module” (claims 2–7 and 25–31); “smartcard chip” (claims 1, 5, 24, and 26–31); and “said smartcard processor chip” (claims 2, 5, and 7). Pet. 11–15. For purposes of instituting trial, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the above-noted terms. Inst. Dec. 10–12. Patent Owner has offered no challenges to any of those claim constructions as a part of this proceeding. Upon review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions as a part of this Final Written Decision. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67– 78–88; Pet. 12–15. For convenience, we reproduce them in table format below: Claim Terms Petitioner’s Proposed Constructions “smartlink module” and “the “a device that includes (1) a module” processor, (2) a wireless data channel to wirelessly communicate transaction data between said processor and a third party terminal, and (3) a second data channel electronically coupled to a mobile communication device.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69–70). “smartcard chip” and “said “a device including a processor and smartcard processor chip”” slip op. at 11

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

    “integrated circuit (communication controller 21’ . . . includes a processor and memory and processor executable code for providing data processing capability” and that a skilled artisan would understand that integrated circuit “includes all of the components called out in the claims the ’792 Patent which would be included in a ‘smartcard chip.’” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 18, 22, 23, 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–172, 179–190). On the record, we are satisfied that Lauper’s integrated circuit constitutes the claimed smartcard chip. slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “does not constitute a smartcard chip, “it would have been obvious to a POSITA (as Ground 2) to modify Lauper to replace the ‘integrated circuit (communication controller 21)’ with a smartcard chip that conforms to the ISO standards.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 178–190) (emphasis omitted).8 In so contending, Petitioner points to disclosure in Lauper that it is “an aim of the present invention to propose a mobile telephone that is suited for the transmission of data with external devices according to a plurality of different standards.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 5) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner also relies on the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich discussing the use of smartcard chips as a part of the ISO standards, such as ISO 7816-4 and ISO 14443, for the type of operations and functions disclosed in Lauper. Id. at 8 Petitioner makes the same alternative argument in connection with the “smartcard chip” recitation in independent claim 24. See Pet. 60–61. 32–34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 39–41, 42–45 124–125, 152, 174, 175, 177, 191, 192, 193; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23, 25, 32). Petitioner further explains that a skilled artisan would have had adequate reason to combine the teachings of Lauper, ISO 7816-4, and ISO 14443, with a reasonable likelihood of success in so combining those teachings. See id. We also are satisfied that Petitioner also accounts for the smartcard chip requirement of the claims as a part of the ground based on Lauper, ISO 7816-4, and ISO 14443.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,110,792 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,110,792
• Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the preliminary construction of “transaction data.”

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 5

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

    “Although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s embedded token, i.e., the output interface of the transaction card. See Ex. 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. Such claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment. We therefore do not limit the claimed “transaction data” and instead preliminarily construe that term as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. As described above, the claimed transaction data must come from the output interface of a transaction card. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateInstituted

    “The dispute relates to whether the ’030 application describes the claimed “smart telephone” accepting transaction data and executing coded instructions to convert the analog signal to digital data representing transaction data as digital data. See Pet. 14–15, 19–27. In Petitioner’s view, that term is supported only by language added to the “Brief Summary of the Invention” during prosecution of the application resulting in the ’286 patent. Id. at 17. In contrast, argues Petitioner, the corresponding section of the ’030 application instead describes transmitting sound to a PC, not a smart telephone. Id. at 19–26. Patent Owner submits that the ’030 application describes generating sounds from a smart phone and using a “key jack sound pass generator” to communicate sounds. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner contends that the claim language is supported by disclosure of receiving the audio signal at a microphone port and converting the signal to transaction data. Id. at 16–18. Patent Owner points also to description of direct communication between a “client device” and server. Id. at 19. On the present record, we find that Petitioner, at this stage in the proceeding, has shown sufficiently how it contends that the earliest possible effective filing date for claims 1–4 of the ’286 patent is March, 3, 2015, such that the Cho, Aaron, Carpenter, and de Geer references qualify as prior art. Patent Owner has identified a factual dispute regarding the significance of the ’030 application’s disclosures, and we view that dispute as best resolved through trial.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner

    “35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) provides that one of the “Requirements of Petition” is that “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” “Whether a non-party is a RPI is a ‘highly fact-dependent question’ and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.” SharkNinja Operating LLC. v. IROBOT Corp., No. IPR2020-00735, 2020 WL 6050687, at *4 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2020) (precedential) (citing Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (Paper 148) (precedential) (citing Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012))). Here, addressing whether TCH is an unnamed RPI would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. There is no allegation or evidence that TCH is “barred or estopped from this proceeding or that Petitioner purposefully omitted [TCH] to gain some advantage.” SharkNinja at *4. Rather, Patent Owner argues that for “once again willfully fail[ing] to identify TCH as a real party in interest, . . . the Petition should be denied on that basis.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In other words, Patent Owner contends only that we deny institution because of “the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected under our precedent.” SharkNinja at *4. We understand that” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,679,286
• Draftkings Inc., A Delaware Corporation v. AG 18, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01446 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 19–30 are unpatentable based on the listed anticipation and obviousness grounds; claim 18 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Module Terms each recite a “module” that is configured to perform or to oversee certain recited functionality, without reciting sufficient structure for performing that functionality. See Pet. 32. Further, as in Williamson, the word “module” in the context of the ’205 patent claims and specification is a “nonce” word, used “in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350–51. We therefore agree with Petitioner’s position that the rebuttable presumption against application of § 112 ¶ 6 is overcome in this case, because the Module Terms are not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See Williamson, 792 F.2d at 1349 (“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”). Patent Owner’s and Dr. Lane’s apparent disagreement with this conclusion in the context of the ’205 patent is unaccompanied by any argument seeking to establish that the Module Terms might be understood to recite a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2005 ¶ 28.” slip op. at 55

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence proffered by Patent Owner (Paper 31). Patent Owner filed an Opposition (Paper 32), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33). We deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence, for reasons provided below.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “k) Conclusion Regarding Claim 12 Thus, based on the record presented, we conclude Petitioner has” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Petitioner relies on Bryson as disclosing the subject matter recited in claim 1, except for limitations 1[g] and 1[h], in substantially similar fashion as discussed above in Ground One in relation to other claims. See Pet. 68–73. Patent Owner’s sole opposition in this regard is whether Bryson discloses the betting range limitation 1[j]. See PO Resp. 49–53 (Patent Owner’s opposition to Ground Four as to claim 1). We conclude a preponderance of the evidence establishes Bryson supports Petitioner’s unopposed contentions in this regard, for the reasons set forth in the Petition which we adopt as our own in this Decision. We accordingly find Bryson discloses the preamble 1[pre] and limitations 1[a]–1[f], 1[i], and 1[k]–1[m].” slip op. at 74

  Patent outcomesUS 9,978,205 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,978,205
• Draftkings Inc. v. AG 18, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01448 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–29 are unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “generally takes issue with whether Petitioner has sufficiently explained its construction of means-plus-function limitations. See PO Resp. 24–35. Nonetheless, based on the complete record, we find that the Petition “identif[ies] the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function” of this means-plus-function limitation in claim 26. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3); see Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:60–66). Moreover, we apply Petitioner’s construction for our prior-art analysis because it is consistent with and supported by the complete record.” slip op. at 38

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “9–11, 20 102(e) Bryson 9, 10 11” slip op. at 110

  Patent outcomesUS 10,614,657 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,614,657
• Draftkings Inc. v. AG 18, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01445 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1–9, 13–16, 18, and 29 are anticipated by Bryson; claims 10–12, 17, and 19–28 are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and determine that these go to the weight we should give Dr. Lane’s testimony, not its admissibility. See Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int’l., 385 F.3d 72, 81 (1st Cir. 2004) (“When the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony—a question to be resolved by the [factfinder].”). As Petitioner notes, we have adopted Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, which is a “bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, applied mathematics, or a similar field, and at least two years of experience” slip op. at 68

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983).” slip op. at 9

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

    “b) Discussion Patent Owner’s position that “dynamically” creating a list means that the list is somehow in the process of “ongoing” or “continuous” creation does not add clarity to understanding of the scope of claims 1 and 8. In that regard, it is not apparent what is meant by “ongoing” or “continuous” list creation. Does that mean the list is never static and must be in a constant state of change? Patent Owner does not point to any record content providing context as to the frequency of list creation that would give rise to such creation being “ongoing” or “continuous.” We also do not discern that the portions of the record cited by Patent Owner, including the Specification of the ’131 patent and the prosecution history, provide cogent support for Patent Owner’s proposed meaning of the term “dynamically.”” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “We additionally observed that Patent Owner agreed that the relevant Means For Terms and Module Terms were understood to be presented in a mean-plus-function format that invokes § 112 ¶ 6, but that Patent Owner generally disagreed with Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Id. at 17–18. For purposes of institution, we were not persuaded that Patent Owner’s argument directed only to an exemplary one of the Module Terms, i.e., “gaming operation creation module,” was adequate to deny institution, and noted that issues pertaining to the Means For and Module Terms may be more thoroughly developed by the parties during trial. Id. at 17–20.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,024,131 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,024,131
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “‘It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.’” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. We agree with Petitioner there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. We find that the disclosure of the ’653 application—limited to general teachings of a smart card, an operating system, and a smart card manager—is insufficient to show possession of limitation [1(j)]. See Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. As we explained above, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571−72. The ’653 Application contains no disclosure of replacing applications, even if the disclosure might render such replacing obvious, it is not sufficient to show the possession required to establish entitlement to a priority date. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’724 patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than March 4, 2012.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that “[t]he parties agree on the level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for all terms not expressly construed below,” and indicates that in parallel District Court litigation, the parties agreed to claim construction for the term “emulator device” to mean “hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that the term “application” should be construed to mean “‘software program suitable for being executed on a portable device,’” but that the “distinction between the parties’ respective proposals need not be resolved for this proceeding.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner finally contends that the phrase “a portion of or in entirety” in each independent claim means “in its entirety or partially,” but not both. Id. at 9. Patent Owner submits that “[t]he parties agree that the Board should construe ‘emulator device’ as ‘hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.’” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner “does not believe that any other terms require construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding.” Id. We apply the agreed upon constructions above, but otherwise find that no express constructions are necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that, even if the applications were stored in “generic memory” as Patent Owner contends, Zhu provides adequate security and would not undermine Petitioner’s motivation to combine. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380 (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”). Indeed, Zhu addresses the problem Patent Owner contends it would cause in the combination.3 As Zhu 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should be precluded from discussing Zhu’s encryption embodiment because it was not raised in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. The claims do not recite anything about how the data should be stored. Thus, it is not surprising that the Petition did not address it. Patent Owner raised the teaching away argument regarding the security of the data. See PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner relies on the exact same mapping, same motivation, and same arguments why Zhu accounted for certain limitations. See Reply 4–11. Petitioner’s Reply merely explained that Zhu did address the problem Patent Owner contended would “teach away” from the combination. Indeed, Patent Owner was aware of Zhu’s teachings and addressed them in their Patent Owner Response. The Federal recognizes, “[l]oading one of the smart card applications already resident on the smart card to another memory location on the mobile device can provide sufficient memory for the selected smart card application, but can also create a security problem.” Ex. 1006 (Zhu), 3:25–34. To address this problem, Zhu proposes encrypting these applications in generic memory which “reduces the possibility of unauthorized access to the information.” Id. at 3:59–61, 8:30–55, 9:28–33; Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6. Although acknowledging this disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, testifies that Zhu’s encryption is inadequate and that encryption would have certain drawbacks. See Ex. 2002 (Weaver Decl.) ¶ 69. We find this testimony, which directly contradicts the teachings of Zhu that encryption is an adequate solution, lacks sufficient support to be entitled to much weight. Dr. Weaver provides no citations to support his contention that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would find encryption so inadequate or problematic as he now contends. Moreover, we find that Dr. Weaver’s testimony on cross examination provides an additional, independent basis to give this testimony little weight. On cross examination, Dr. Weaver contended that there was nothing uniquely inadequate about the particular encryption scheme disclosed in Zhu, but rather that his “opinion was more general, that encryption schemes known in the 2012 time frame were all breakable with computing power and time,” and thus, inadequate Circuit has explained that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding Zhu’s encryption are proper. for storing payment applications in a mobile device’s general memory. Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 26:11–23; see also id. at 23:3–8 (“[D]oes encryption ever provide a sufficiently high security to permit storing payment application on a mobile device’s general memory? A. No”); 24:15–25:23 (testifying all publicly known encryption schemes in 2012 were breakable). However, when confronted with the fact that the ’724 patent discloses storing payment application on general baseband memory using an encryption method that was breakable, id. at 26:24–29:7, Dr. Weaver testified that this encryption method was sufficient to allow storing payment applications in general baseband memory even though it was “not perfectly secure,” id. at 29:8–14. Dr. Weaver provides no explanation or rationale why the encryption method in the ’724 patent, which he admits suffers from the same drawbacks he identified with respect to Zhu, is sufficient, but other encryption methods would not be sufficient. In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner attempts to rehabilitate Dr. Weaver’s testimony with justifications and qualifications not found in his original testimony. Sur-Reply 7–8. Yet, Dr. Weaver’s testimony discussed above was clear and unequivocal. See Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 24:15–29:14. Patent Owner made no effort to redirect his testimony at his deposition, so it cannot now do so through mere attorney argument. We find the inconsistency between Dr. Weaver’s treatment of Zhu and his treatment of similar disclosure in the ’724 patent exposes the insufficient reasoning supporting his opinions regarding the adequacy of Zhu’s use of encryption in the combination. Accordingly, we give no weight to his testimony that a skilled artisan would not have combined Zhu with a Buhot/GPC system due to security concerns. In contrast, we find the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the use of encryption and the tradeoffs with the benefits of adopting Zhu’s memory management technique, which he offers in his Supplemental Declaration, to be well-reasoned, consistent with the disclosure of Zhu and the ’724 patent4, and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. As Petitioner recognizes, “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver testified, decryption without access to the security keys is an extremely computationally intensive and time-consuming process. Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 23:17–25:2; see also Ex. 10175, 132. Mr. Smith testifies that the benefits of using encryption would be sufficient to resolve the security concerns Patent Owner raises, and that any burden of generating a certificate would be outweighed by the benefits of using encryption and the memory advantages Zhu’s technique would offer. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s security concerns would be” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,018,724 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,018,724
• Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00989 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5–11, 13, and 15–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460; anticipation was not shown, and the other obviousness ground was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner further states that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claims would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 15–16. We find that the ’539 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’539 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12

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

    “awake state” Claim 24 recites, in part, “to determine whether breathing patterns indicate an asleep state or an awake state.” Ex. 1001, 11:36–12:7; see also id. at 9:49–64 (claim 1 reciting “between an awake state and an asleep state”), 10:42–56 (claim 11 reciting “at least one of an awake state or an asleep state”). In regard to its allegations of obviousness, Petitioner’s arguments suggest an “awake state” ordinarily means when a patient is not asleep. Pet. 36–37, 42. By contrast, with regard to its allegations of anticipation, Petitioner argues that under Patent Owner’s “implied construction of ‘an awake state’ based on [Patent Owner’s] infringement allegations” in district court, “the patient is in an awake state when there is an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep.” Id. at 68–70 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 2, 158, 159). Petitioner provides no further support for this “implied construction” purportedly taken from Patent Owner’s district court allegations. Id. Dr. Kirkness, in support of Petitioner, applied the plain meaning of all terms and phrases. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. In regard to supporting Petitioner’s allegations of anticipation, Dr. Kirkness merely assumed Patent Owner’s purported district court claim construction “position to be true.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 253. In this proceeding Patent Owner does not propose an express meaning for “awake state.” See PO Resp. 29–33. More generally, Patent Owner states that the ’539 patent “teaches how to distinguish between an awake state and an asleep state.” Id. at 8. From the arguments of the Parties, we discern no dispute in this proceeding that a plain and ordinary meaning of an “awake state” is a state in which a patient is not asleep. See Ex. 1001, 3:1–5 (distinguishing between “a wake state” and “a sleep state”), 7:22–24 (describing an embodiment with a processing arrangement that “may determine whether the patient is in a sleep state or a wake state based on the breathing pattern”).8 We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “awake state” in this proceeding and further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that an awake state means “an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Next, we turn to the Specification. “While we read claims in view of the specification . . . we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F. 3d at 1371 (citation omitted). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Id. In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, the “patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’” and “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the terms.” Bradium Tech., 923 F. 3d at 1044. In this case, Patent Owner does not argue that it disavowed the full scope of the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 24, nor does Patent Owner argue that it explicitly defined “analyzing the breathing patterns” in the Specification. See, e.g., PO Resp. 29–32. We determine that there is no disavowal nor any explicit lexicographic definition of “analyzing the breathing patterns” in the Specification. Patent Owner instead relies on an “implied lexicography” theory as to why we should construe the phrase as Patent Owner proposes. PO Sur-reply 2, 6–7 (citing, inter alia, AstraZeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co., Inc., 384 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We disagree.” slip op. at 27

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments—that Petitioner fails to show any motivation to combine and that Sullivan460 is not enabled— merely because Dr. Kirkness indicated in a deposition that he did not know how a preset level is calculated from a sentence in Sullivan460. As Petitioner explains, enablement “is not a requirement to prove invalidity under §103.” Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1357 (under §103, “a reference need not be enabled; it qualifies as a prior art, regardless, for whatever is disclosed therein”). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the Challenged Claims do not require any preset level for a flow rate, and a person of ordinary skill “would have understood that a preset level is established from previously-acquired data or data from a previous window of time, such as an average level, for example, as taught in Sullivan995.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 2014, 38:2–16; Ex. 1005, 17:3–27, Fig. 12). Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s assertion is unsupported, and that “Petitioner is obligated to address this challenge, and failed to do so.” PO Sur-reply 18–19 (citing In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 110 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive because they are supported by the asserted references. Sullivan995 discloses that the computing system may “calculate control values of patterns for each patient based on moving average values or such values or patterns will be pre-programmed into the computing system.” Ex. 1005, 17:14–18. According to Sullivan995, when “signals deviate from predetermined values or patterns the computer system generates a signal which is sent to the feedback speed controller on the blower motor.” Id. at 17:19–22. Based on this disclosure, and given that Sullivan460 incorporates Sullivan995 by reference, we agree with Petitioner that Sullivan460’s disclosure of detecting that the flow rate has fallen below a preset level would have informed a person of ordinary skill that this level was predetermined, so that “the controller 100 activates the nCPAP apparatus 90 to supply air to the patient 30 at a pressure which ameliorates or eliminates the upper airway flow limitation.”16 Ex. 1006, 10:17–21.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,427,539 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,427,539
• Life Vac, LLC v. Dcstar Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · PGR2023-00032 · APJ Michael L Woods · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–17 were more likely than not unpatentable over Lih, Tarrats, and da Costa or anticipated by Lih.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “institute an post-grant review if “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed definitions are similar, with a primary difference being that Petitioner’s definition more broadly includes people having experience with “medical devices in general.” Compare Pet. 18–19, with Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s standard is “unreasonably broad,” arguing that Patent Owner’s definition for a skilled artisan “more reasonably focuses on the nature of the subject invention.” Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have necessarily required experience with respiratory devices, as Patent Owner proposes. See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. We find Petitioner’s definition, which would include “a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least 5 years of experience in designing or developing medical devices in general,” is consistent with the ’575 patent and the asserted prior art. Pet. 18–19; see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner expressly construes “bottom plate” and “check valve.” See Pet. 20–21. Patent Owner proposes a construction for “bottom plate,” “check valve,” and “connector.” Prelim Resp. 8–11. For purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not formally construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Each of the Challenged Claims requires a connector with a “bottom plate,” yet Petitioner fails to explain how the combined references would yield a connector with such a plate. See Prelim. Resp. 30–33 (arguing the same); see also Ex. 1001, 10:14–17 (independent claim 1), 10:46 (independent claim 3), 11:63 (independent claim 9); 12:35–36 (independent claim 13). Neither of Lih’s connector (element 118, Fig. 3) nor Tarrats’s “connector” (element 15, Fig. 1) has a “plate,” and Petitioner fails to explain how the lower surface of da Costa’s piston is being used to modify Lih’s or Tarrats’s connector to satisfy the claimed structure. See 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5); see also Pet. 28–29. Further, Petitioner relies on da Costa’s heart resuscitating device, rather than its dechoking device, in modifying Lih. See Pet. 29 (citing da Costa’s Figure 6 and relief valves 55, 56). da Costa’s heart resuscitation device, however, is used for pumping air into a patient’s lungs for the purpose of initiating blood circulation in the event the patient’s heart stopped working. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 6:43–52. The pressure relief valves cited by Petitioner are presumably used to prevent over-pressurizing and under-pressurizing the patient’s lungs, which we understand would be dangerous for the patient. We do not see a skilled artisan as incorporating da Costa’s pressure relief valves into Lih’s choking intervention device, which is structured to prevent pumping air into a patient. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:3–5 (“bellows assembly 102 may include a relief valve 108 configured to allow air to escape . . . when the bellows 104 is being compressed”). Petitioner explains that the combination would “avoid pushing the obstruction farther into the user’s airway while in use and to initiate blood circulation” (see Pet. 29), yet Lih’s valve 108 already “avoid[s] pushing the obstruction farther into the user’s airway” and “initiat[ing] blood circulation” benefits a heart-resuscitation device, not Lih’s dechoking device. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the proposed combination lacks sufficient reasoning. See Prelim. Resp. 33–37. We further agree with Patent Owner that modifying Lih’s device so that it pumps air into a patient’s lungs for the purpose of “initiating blood circulation,” as reasoned by Petitioner (see Pet. 29), would render Lih’s device unsuitable as a dechoking device, which is its intended purpose. See Prelim. Resp. 37–38 (arguing the same). To reiterate, Lih’s dechoking device avoids introducing air into the patient’s lungs, which would further lodge an obstruction in the patient’s trachea. See Ex. 1004, 4:3–5.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,478,575
• Google LLC v. Nobots LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00940 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 20 are unpatentable; claims 18 and 19 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted grounds failed to establish the required limitations for those claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’008 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field with coursework relating to computer science, plus two years’ academic and/or industry experience in computer security. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 2. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with 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 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “In considering Patent Owner’s explanation, and upon further reflection, we agree with Patent Owner’s reading of the pertinent sentence. In that regard, consistent with the remainder of the Specification of the ’008 patent, it follows that the noted sentence does not alter the contours of “acquired” data to also encompass “passive” data where that premise is entirely absent from other portions of the Specification. Rather, as Patent Owner explains, the sentence is consistent with the understanding that it is “active data” that is connected to the word “acquired” and “passive data” that is connected to the word “available.” See, e.g., id. Patent Owner’s explanation alleviates the ambiguity that was postulated in the Institution Decision. We have considered Petitioner’s views to the contrary (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 21–25) but find them unavailing. In particular, Petitioner does not reconcile its position that, although acknowledging that “acquired data” is defined in the ’008 patent, the term “acquiring” is not so defined and should be regarded as an “individual word” whose meaning is somehow entirely unconnected to “acquired.” See, e.g., Pet. Reply 21. We note, as we did in the Institution Decision, that the ’008 patent states that “acquired data” and “its equivalents and verb forms” is “a type of active data.” See Inst. Dec. 30 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:25–32). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s view (see, identifiable as a verb form of “acquired.” See PO Sur-reply 8. We determine that, in the context of the ’008 patent, it clearly is. Having considered the competing views of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we conclude that Patent Owner’s construction of the term “acquiring interest data” is consistent with, and supported by, the Specification of the ’008 patent. In that regard, we conclude that, as is advanced by Patent Owner, “acquiring interest data” must encompass the retrieval of some active data.” slip op. at 16

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

    “1–3 and 6–17 are found in Willner. Pet. 9–26. During trial, Patent Owner presented no arguments challenging Petitioner’s proposed ground of unpatentability of claims 1–3 and 6–17 based on Willner. During oral argument, upon questioning, counsel for Patent Owner expressed that “We did not present any arguments on Claims 1 to 3, 6 to 17 on Ground 1.” Tr. 30:3–4. We determine that Petitioner, via its Petition, has established adequately where all the features of claims 1–3 and 6–17 are present in Willner. See Pet. 9–26. Given that determination, and in the absence of any argument during trial challenging Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability based on Willner as to those claims, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 and 6–17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Willner.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Here, we conclude that: (1) the parties’ recognized level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 4; PO Resp. 2); (2) the knowledge of a skilled artisan as set forth by record evidence, including the teachings of Willner and Kitts; and (3) the nature of the problem addressed in both of those references, i.e., click fraud detection, all support a determination that a skilled artisan would have had adequate reasons to combine Willner and Kitts, and would have had a reasonable expectation in doing so. To that end, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition as to the proposed reasoning to combine Willner and Kitts, and also credit Dr. Lopresti’s supporting testimony. See Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118. We are mindful of the contrasting testimony referenced by Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Russ. See, e.g., PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110). Dr. Russ testifies that, in his view, there are “practical” and “technical” “considerations” in combining Willner and Kitts that a “POSA would have had to consider in determining whether a reasonable expectation of success exists, none of which are addressed or discussed in the Petition.” See Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110. The example considerations listed by Dr. Russ are reproduced below: 1. How Kitts’ passive data could be collected and stored in conjunction with the mouse vector data already being collected by Willner; 2. How to collectively analyze fundamentally different types of data—Willner’s mouse vector data on one hand, and Kitts’ passive data on the other; 3. How to generate a useful confidence score that is more accurate than the scores already generated by Willner, again taking into consideration that passive data is a fundamentally different type of data than active data; assessment using the complex statistical model of Kitts; and 5. To what extent additional computer hardware would be necessary to enable the combined system to effectively operate and whether such hardware could be reasonably implemented, taking into consideration both cost and feasibility. Ex. 2011 ¶ 108. Those considerations are generally directed to collection and use of” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,595,008 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,595,008
• First Solar, Inc. v. Rovshan SadeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00881 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was unpatentable over Wattsun, RayTracker, or their combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In 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 of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Relying on the declaration testimony of Edward C. Kern, Jr., Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’17,546 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience involving design, development, and manufacturing of support and mounting structures for solar trackers, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34). Patent Owner does not dispute this definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’17,546 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner submits the claims be interpreted “according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)” and that no terms require explicit construction. Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not “believe that any claim terms require express construction in order to deny institution.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner also asserts “that providing a construction of the claims at issue is the duty of Petitioner, and the Petitioner has failed to comply.” Id. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

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

    “d) Analysis We observe that Patent Owner’s arguments in connection with its challenge to Wattsun as prior art do raise meaningful questions, on this record, as to Wattsun’s status as a printed publication before the priority date of the challenged patent. In particular, we take note of Patent Owner’s contention (see Prelim. Resp. 20–21) that Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence or argument that an interested party exercising reasonable diligence would have located Wattsun. See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,546

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.