• Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00862 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing

  On Director remand, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–11, 13, and 15–24 on all petitioned grounds and granted joinder with IPR2021-01493.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office vacating our previous decision denying institution, remanding for further proceedings, and ordering us to reconsider joinder after reconsidering the decision denying institution. Paper 18 (“Remand Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “We consider the Director’s Memorandum, which directs that “the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Memorandum 2. The Memorandum explains that “where the PTAB determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis added). The Memorandum further explains that “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 4. On the current record, we determine that Petitioner’s invalidity grounds present compelling unpatentability challenges. See infra Sections IV, D–I. In particular, in our view at this stage of the proceeding, the Petition presents compelling evidence that three prior art references, including Border, which was not before the jury in the Teso litigation, anticipate many of the claims of the ’510 patent. We determine that instituting inter partes review under these circumstances “strikes a balance among the competing concerns of avoiding potentially conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and strengthening the patent system by eliminating patents that are not robust and reliable.” Memorandum 5. Accordingly, based upon our consideration of the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, and pursuant to the directive in the Memorandum concerning compelling, meritorious challenges, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review as Patent Owner requests.” slip op. at 13

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

    “PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Memorandum 2. The Memorandum explains that “where the PTAB determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis added). The Memorandum further explains that “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 4. On the current record, we determine that Petitioner’s invalidity grounds present compelling unpatentability challenges. See infra Sections IV, D–I. In particular, in our view at this stage of the proceeding, the Petition presents compelling evidence that three prior art references, including Border, which was not before the jury in the Teso litigation, anticipate many of the claims of the ’510 patent. We determine that instituting inter partes review under these circumstances “strikes a balance among the competing concerns of avoiding potentially conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and strengthening the patent system by eliminating patents that are not robust and reliable.” Memorandum 5. Accordingly, based upon our consideration of the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, and pursuant to the directive in the Memorandum concerning compelling, meritorious challenges, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review as Patent Owner requests.” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “As discussed above, we determine that the merits of this action present a compelling unpatentability challenge. Absent joinder, a one-year bar would apply to Petitioner, and, again, the merits presented in this challenge would not be reached by the Board in a final written decision. Under these specific circumstances, we determine joinder is appropriate in the interests of justice. Because NetNut has been dismissed from the 1493 IPR, there are no longer issues of cooperation and duplication that would have to be addressed between petitioners. Additionally, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(11), maintaining the previously-set trial schedule in the 1493 IPR is not necessary when joinder is granted. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Thus, the schedule will be adjusted in accordance with a Revised Scheduling Order, entered concurrently with this Decision.” slip op. at 37

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,484,510
• Major Data Uab v. Bright Data Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2022 · IPR2022-00916 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 2, 6–11, 13, and 15–24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and compelling evidence of unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 2. Patent Owner expresses concern, however, that “Major Data was formed as a ‘back-up’ option to continue these IPRs,” and represents that Patent Owner “has not sued Major Data for infringement of any patents and Patent Owner is not aware of any services offered by Major Data.” Prelim. Resp. 3. In its Preliminary Reply, however, Petitioner points out that shortly before Patent Owner filed the Preliminary Response, Petitioner had advised Patent Owner and “confirmed, inter alia, that it is not affiliated with any of the Code200 parties and did not discuss the preparation or filing of IPRs with anyone apart from privileged communications with its own attorneys.” Pet. Prelim. Reply 3. Petitioner avers that “it did not file its IPRs at any another party’s behest.” Id. In its Preliminary Sur-reply, Patent Owner does not directly challenge Petitioner’s representations, but instead “reserves all rights including, e.g., vacatur and sanctions, if any contradictions to Petitioner’s representations should arise.” PO Prelim. Sur-reply 4. Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has established compliance with the statutory requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) to identify all real parties in interest. C. The ’510 Patent” slip op. at 3

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

    “Neither party addresses, however, another directive of the Memorandum, which states that “the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Memorandum 2. The Memorandum explains that “where the PTAB determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” Memorandum, 4–5 (emphasis added). The Memorandum further explains that “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Memorandum 4. On the current record, we determine that Petitioner’s invalidity grounds, if unrebutted at trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. See infra Sections IV.D–I. Instituting inter partes review under these circumstances “strikes a balance among the competing concerns of avoiding potentially conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and strengthening the patent system by eliminating patents that are not robust and reliable.” Memorandum 5. Accordingly, based upon our consideration of the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, and pursuant to the directive in the Memorandum concerning compelling, meritorious challenges, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review as Patent Owner requests.” slip op. at 11

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

    “partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’510 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field (or equivalent experience), and two or more years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems as of the Priority Date.” Pet. 16. Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill would be familiar with “the underlying principles of Web, Internet, or network communication, data transfer, and content sharing across networks, including the HTTP and TCP/IP protocols.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “had a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications.” Prelim. Resp. 29–30 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶ 18). Patent Owner acknowledges that the parties’ respective proposed qualifications “are not materially different, at least in terms of affecting an institution decision in this IPR.” Id. at 30. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’510 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,484,510
• Major Data Uab v. Bright Data Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2022 · IPR2022-00915 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 17–19, and 21–29 on all asserted grounds, based on compelling evidence that the challenged claims would be unpatentable if unrebutted.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Memorandum, which states that “the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Memorandum 2. The Memorandum explains that “where the PTAB determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” Memorandum, 4–5 (emphasis added). The Memorandum further explains that “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Memorandum 4. On the current record, we determine that Petitioner’s invalidity grounds, if unrebutted at trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. See infra Sections IV.E–J. Instituting inter partes review under these circumstances “strikes a balance among the competing concerns of avoiding potentially conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and strengthening the patent system by eliminating patents that are not robust and reliable.” Memorandum 5. Accordingly, based upon our consideration of the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, and pursuant to the directive in the Memorandum concerning compelling, meritorious challenges, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review as Patent Owner requests.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner identifies Major Data UAB as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 2. Patent Owner expresses concern, however, that “Major Data was formed as a ‘back-up’ option to continue these IPRs,” and represents that Patent Owner “has not sued Major Data for infringement of any patents and Patent Owner is not aware of any services offered by Major Data.” Prelim. Resp. 3. In its Preliminary Reply, however, Petitioner points out that shortly before Patent Owner filed the Preliminary Response, Petitioner had advised Patent Owner and “confirmed, inter alia, that it is not affiliated with any of the Code200 parties and did not discuss the preparation or filing of IPRs with anyone apart from privileged communications with its own attorneys.” Pet. Prelim. Reply 3. Petitioner avers that “it did not file its IPRs at any another party’s behest.” Id. In its Preliminary Sur-reply, Patent Owner does not directly challenge Petitioner’s representations, but instead “reserves all rights including, e.g., vacatur and sanctions, if any contradictions to Petitioner’s representations should arise.” PO Prelim. Sur-reply 4. Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field (or equivalent experience), and two or more years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems as of the Priority Date.” Pet. 16. Petitioner continues that “[s]uch a person would be familiar with the underlying principles of Web, Internet, or network communication, data transfer, and content sharing across networks, including the HTTP and TCP/IP protocols.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Teruya Decl. ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications.” Prelim. Resp. 29–30. We regard Petitioner’s more specific definition as consistent with the ’319 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Therefore, for the purpose of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 14

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “device” as a “consumer computer” was previously considered, and rejected, by the district court in the Teso Litigation. See, e.g., Ex. 1017, 10–12. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner takes issue with the evidence and the reasoning used by the district court to reject Patent Owner’s previously proposed construction. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 34–36. We have considered Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response that the district court’s construction of the claim term “client device” as a “communication device that is operating in the role of a client” is incorrect. See Prelim. Resp. 31–49. For purposes of this decision, however, we concur with the district court’s reasoning and agree with its construction of the claim term “client device” as a “communication device that is operating in the role of a client.” This construction is consistent with, and supported by, the intrinsic evidence of the specification.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,257,319
• Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00353 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–11, 13, 16, 18–25, 29–34, 36, 39, and 41–46 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Under factor (c) and based on the record before us, the fact that Crowds was not the basis of rejection in the prosecution of the ’344 patent nor was identified by the parties as the basis of rejection in any of the related patents weighs strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Becton Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17; see also Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., CBM2016-00075, Paper No. 16 at 11 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) (informative). As such, the record does not demonstrate the extent to which the Examiner considered Crowds alone or in combination with RFC 1122 and RFC 2616, as asserted in this Petition and applied to the challenged claims. Under factors (e) and (f), and as discussed infra at Section IV.D, Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that Crowds discloses every limitation of the independent claim of the ’344 patent. Additionally, the examiner did not have the benefit of the claim construction of the district court, which we have adopted here (infra Section IV.B), which included broad constructions of the terms “client device” and “second server.” We also consider these factors to weigh strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Accordingly, in view of the issues addressed above, we determine that the evidence supports that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution.” slip op. at 10

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

    “At this juncture, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that Crowds discloses the preamble of claim 1 and limitations 1[a]– 1[e].8” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field (or equivalent experience), and two or more years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems” as of the date of the invention. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications.” Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2017 ¶ 21). Patent Owner acknowledges, however, that the parties’ respective proposed qualifications “are not materially different, at least in terms of affecting an institution decision in this IPR.” Id. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’344 patent and the prior art before us.6 See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that, at this juncture, we agree with Patent Owner that the proposed qualifications are not materially different and our assessment of the merits of the Petition, as discussed below, would remain the same under either parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “statements regarding the construction of terms. Specifically, the district court stated that “a component can be configured to operate in different roles—so long as it does not ‘simultaneously serve as more than one of: the client device, the first server/second server, and the web server.’” Ex. 1014, 10. That is, although the district court determined that a single component could not simultaneously serve more than one function at any particular time, it stated that different components could operate in different roles. Id. More particularly, in the discussion of “server” terms, the district court indicated that the function of a component, not its structure, serves to define the term. Id. at 7–10. For instance, the district court adopted the language “a device that is operating in the role of” for the term “client device.” See id. at 10. Further, the district court found that the contention “that a client device is specifically not a server—is not supported by the specification.” Ex. 1011, 11. The district court also stated that “[t]he patents do not include servers as a type of ‘communication device,’ but that is not sufficient to construe ‘client device’ as unable to act as a server in all cases.” Id. at 12 (emphasis added). We credit the district court’s interpretation of the claim terms. Accordingly, for the purposes of this decision we adopt the construction of a “client device” as “communication device that is operating in the role of a client.” Ex. 1011, 12. Additionally, we construe the term “second server” as “server that is not the client device” (id. at 14), consistent with the district court’s clarification (Ex. 1014, 8, 11).” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,044,344
• Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00103 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–11, 13, 15, 16, and 18–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation and obviousness.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “Under factor (c) and based on the record before us, the fact that Crowds was not the basis of rejection in the prosecution of the ’342 patent nor was identified by the parties as the basis of rejection of in any of the related patents weighs strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17; see also Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., CBM2016-00075, Paper No. 16 at 11 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) (informative). As such, the record does not demonstrate the extent to which the Examiner considered Crowds alone or in combination with RFC 1122 and RFC 2616, as asserted in this Petition and applied to the challenged claims. Under factor (f), and as discussed infra at Section IV.D, Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that Crowds discloses every limitation of the independent claim of the ’342 patent. Additionally, the examiner did not have the benefit of the claim construction of the district court, which we have adopted here (infra Section IV.B), which included broad construction of the terms “client device” and “second server.” We also determine that Crowds, asserted here, is more material than the combination of Fang and Zaid, which were the basis of a rejection in prosecution of the related ’319 patent. As Petitioner points out, the basis of the applicant’s arguments regarding the examiner’s rejection over Fang and Zaid includes that the rejection was not clear, the prior art was non-analogous, and there was improper rationale for combining the references. 6 Pet. 64–65 (citing Ex. 1018, 13, 19–22). The examiner’s basis for allowance of the claims of the ’319 patent application, while lacking specificity, does state that allowance was granted “in view of the Applicant’s arguments.” Ex. 1018, 9. Here, the applicant’s arguments, that include assertions of nonanalogous art and improper rationale to combine, with the examiner identifying applicant’s arguments as a reason for allowance, persuade us that the single reference Crowds is more material than the combination of Fang and Zaid. Or, in other words, we do not discern that the combination of Fang and Zaid is stronger prior art than Crowds.” slip op. at 11

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

    “At this juncture, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that Crowds discloses the preamble of claim 1 and limitations 1[a]– 1[d].9” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications.” Prelim. Resp. 31–32 (citing Ex. 2017 ¶ 21). Patent Owner acknowledges, however, that the parties’ respective proposed qualifications “are not materially different, at least in terms of affecting an institution decision in this IPR.” Id. at 32. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’342 patent and the prior art before us.7 See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that, at this juncture, we agree with Patent Owner that the proposed qualifications are not materially different and our assessment of the merits of the Petition, as discussed below, would remain the same under either parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner has failed to consider some of the district court’s statements on the construction of terms. Specifically, the district court stated that “a component can be configured to operate in different roles—‘so long as it does not simultaneously serve as more than one of: the client device, the first server/second server, and the web server.’” Ex. 1014, 10. That is, although the district court determined that a single component could not simultaneously serve more than one function at any particular time, it stated that different components could operate in different roles. Id. More particularly, in the discussion of “server” terms, the district court indicated that the function of a component, not its structure, serves to define the term. Id. at 7–10. For instance, the district court adopted the language “a device that is operating in the role of” for the term “client device.” See id. at 10. Further, the district court found that the contention “that a client device is specifically not a server—is not supported by the specification.” Ex. 1011, 11. The district court also stated that “[t]he patents do not include servers as a type of ‘communication device,’ but that is not sufficient to construe ‘client device’ as unable to act as a server in all cases.” Id. at 12 (emphasis added). We credit the district court’s interpretation of the claim terms. Accordingly, for the purposes of this decision we adopt the construction of a “client device” as “communication device that is operating in the role of a client.” Ex. 1011, 12. Additionally, we construe the term “second server” as “server that is not the client device” (id. at 14), consistent with the district court’s clarification (Ex. 1014, 8, 11). We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,044,342
• Hulu, LLC v. Sito Mobile R&D IP, LLC And Sito Mobile, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2022 · IPR2021-00265 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–19, 21, 24, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over Eyal and Wiser; claims 15, 16, 19, 21, and 27 are also unpatentable over Madison and Wiser.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The Specification sets forth the following definition: “[a] reservation is a feature that enables the streaming system 102 to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 11:59−62 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit has recognized that “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess,” and “[i]n such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, consistent with the definition in the Specification, we construe “reservation” as “a feature that enables the streaming system . . . to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 11:59−62. We agree with Patent Owner that the construction of the term “reservation” does 7 not require “a set of instructions uniquely identifying the communication device.” As to “reservation identification,” we adopt Patent Owner’s construction, construing the term “reservation identification” as “identification of a reservation” because this construction is consistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, without requiring the identification to be unique.” slip op. at 7

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

    “is a feature that enables the streaming system 102 to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 11:59−62 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit has recognized that “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess,” and “[i]n such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, consistent with the definition in the Specification, we construe “reservation” as “a feature that enables the streaming system . . . to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 11:59−62. We agree with Patent Owner that the construction of the term “reservation” does 7 not require “a set of instructions uniquely identifying the communication device.” As to “reservation identification,” we adopt Patent Owner’s construction, construing the term “reservation identification” as “identification of a reservation” because this construction is consistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, without requiring the identification to be unique.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Here, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’360 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical or computer engineering, or equivalent.” Pet. 16. And, such an artisan also would have had “at least two years of experience in distributed systems, multimedia streaming, and various HTTP-related technologies, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience,” citing to the Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D., for support. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59−61). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Michael Adams, provides similar assessment, but also testifies that such an artisan, alternatively, would have had “at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of distributed network systems and/or multimedia streaming.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 28. Neither party points out any meaningful difference between the parties’ assessments. We apply Patent Owner’s assessment on the level of ordinary skill in the art. However, our analysis would be the same under either party’s description.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableUnpatentable

    “added). Dr. Houh testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have used Wiser’s voucher ID in Eyal’s play-list because delivery servers may have a “limited number of active streams of data being delivered at any one time,” so that generating and tracking reservations by the content server using voucher IDs is necessary. Ex. 1003 ¶ 144 (citing Ex. 1006, 14:65−15:1). We agree with and credit Dr. Houh’s testimony, and we find that such an artisan of ordinary skill would have understood that, in Eyal in combination with Wiser, the voucher ID provided in the play-list is uniquely associated with the client device and a viewing session of the media. Ex. 1003 ¶ 151 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:30−33, 15:23−28). We do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that “Wiser teaches away from video.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 174). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, nothing in Wiser would discourage a relevant artisan from applying its teachings to video media, as Patent Owner alleges. Patent Owner’s argument of teaching away is based on speculation. As discussed above, Wiser’s disclosure is not limited to audio media. Ex. 1006, 1:5−8, 1:23−26, 3:8−10; Ex. 1083, 145:20−147:21. The “mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, KSR instructs us that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize 20 that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. As Dr. Houh testifies, “[s]ervers’ limited streaming capacity was a common media delivery problem, and well-known solutions existed before the ’360 Patent, including generating a reservation to ensure resource availability for streaming media to the user.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106, 167 (citing Ex. 1019, 263 (Discussion on Resource Reservation Protocols (RSVP) in the book entitled “Communication and Computing for Distributed Multimedia Systems”); Ex. 1023 (RSVP Specification); Ex. 1024, 194 (Discussion on the Reservation Protocol in the book entitled “Multimedia Servers”)).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,591,360 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,591,360
• Hulu, LLC v. Sito Mobile R&D IP, LLC And Sito Mobile, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2022 · IPR2021-00219 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 11–13, 17, 18, 20, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Eyal and ASX Files and over Madison and Holtz.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’635 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical or computer engineering, or equivalent, and at least two years of experience in distributed systems, multimedia streaming, and various HTTPrelated technologies, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience.” Pet. 20 (citing Houh Decl. ¶¶ 57–60). Patent Owner contends a person of ordinary skill “would have: (a) a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or computer engineering (or a related academic field), and at least two additional years of work experience in the design and development of distributed network systems and/or media streaming, or (b) at least five 5 Neither party presents evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. 14 years of work experience and training in the design and development of distributed network systems and/or media streaming.” PO Resp. 6–7. Neither party points out any meaningful difference between the” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “have been obvious to combine two references. Reply 14. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument, that just because Eyal’s system “works perfectly well,” a person of ordinary skill would not seek to improve its performance. We rely, instead, on Dr. Houh’s testimony, summarized above, that there would be advantages in combining the teachings of Eyal and ASF Files. Houh Decl. ¶¶ 140–141. For example, as discussed supra, Dr. Houh testifies that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Eyal to utilize the ASX files “to improve the ability of its play-lists to work effectively with Windows Media Player end user terminals.” 23 Id. ¶ 140. Further, we credit his testimony that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Eyal’s disclosure with ASX Files to improve advertising features disclosed in Eyal. Id. at 141. He testifies that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a reasonable chance of success” because the ASX file format is XML, “a common format for data exchange on a network.” Id. ¶ 142. In contrast, Mr. Adams testifies that “there is no motivation to add the use of ASX files to Eyal.” Adams Decl. ¶ 139. Mr. Adams supports this testimony by asserting that “the Eyal system builds a simple play list and nothing more.” Id. We disagree with this assertion by Mr. Adams and with the implication that follows, that because the Eyal system is “simple,” a person of ordinary skill would not seek to improve it. See discussion of Dr. Houh’s testimony, supra. We are also not persuaded by Mr. Adams’s testimony that Eyal’s disclosure of Windows Media Player is “not in [and] of itself” a reason to consider using ASX files in Eyal, “when Eyal works perfectly well without it.” Adams Decl. ¶ 141. This testimony is unavailing for several reasons. First, the evidence of record links Windows Media Player with use of ASX Files. See Ex. 1017, 1 (“ASX files are simply text files that act as links from Web pages to ASF files on Windows Media Services or HTTP servers.”). Also, Mr. Adams’s testimony assumes (incorrectly) that because Eyal may work with other files, a person of ordinary skill would ignore the teachings that ASX files are used by Windows Media Player.” slip op. at 23

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

    “filing date because the ’519 application does not disclose the claimed “play script” or the claimed “instructions.” Pet. 11–12; Reply 11–14. We agree and find that the ’635 patent is not entitled to that earlier date for the reasons given by Petitioner. As Petitioner points out, the ’519 application does not refer to a play script. Reply 8. The written description of the play script was not added until 2002. Id. Patent Owner contends that in the priority documents, “play script is used interchangeabl[y] with play list.” PO Resp. 34–45. Patent Owner fails to demonstrate persuasively that lacking the 11 description added in 2002, the “play list” disclosed in the ’519 application has the required elements of the play script claimed in the ’635 patent. Reply 12. One of those required elements of the claimed play script is “one or more instructions for use by the communication device together with the at least one URL to cause the at least one portion of the requested media to be streamed to the communication device.” See claim element 1.c.4, Ex. 1001, 51:8–11. We find that there is inadequate written description in the ’519 application of “instructions . . . to enable the communication device to obtain the at least one portion of the requested media.” Reply 8–9. We agree with Petitioner that the “presentation identification” relied on by Patent Owner (Ex. 2015, 7) does not provide “instructions…to enable the communication device to obtain the at least one portion of the requested media.” Reply 13. Instead, the “presentation identification” “identifies a particular presentation . . . and its associated media.” Id. (quoting PO Resp. 36). Absent an adequate written description in the ’519 application of these claimed features, Patent Owner’s attempt to obtain the benefit of the filing date of that application for the challenged claims of the ’635 patent fails. “It is elementary patent law that patent claims are 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).” slip op. at 11

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,135,635 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,135,635
• Hulu, LLC v. Sito Mobile R&D IP, LLC And Sito Mobile, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2022 · IPR2021-00206 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 10, 11, 14, 34, 35, 37, 39, 43, and 47–50 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “U.S. Patent No. 8,825,887 (“the ’887 patent”). The claims of that patent include the same term referring to “at least one portion,” and the ’887 patent shares its written description with the ’636 patent. In our Final Written Decision in CBM2020-00028 (Paper 33, 9−13), we found that the plain and ordinary meaning of this term encompasses one or more portions of the “requested media,” as well as the entirety of the “requested media.” CBM2020-00028, Paper 33 at 10–11. We declined to adopt Patent Owner’s implicit claim construction because it improperly imports extraneous limitations into the claims and excludes a preferred embodiment. Id. at 11–” slip op. at 8

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

    “as “a file containing one or more media references and other information used by a communication device to obtain media.” PO Resp. 14–17. Patent Owner contends that “a play script is not itself limited to being a list.” Id. at 15. Patent Owner argues that a script “is a file, which can be processed by a computer to obtain media” because the claims recite that the play script contains “instructions.” Id. Patent Owner also cites the district court’s adoption of this construction. Id. at 13–14. Whether or not a playlist is a file is not a meaningful distinction for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. As Petitioner notes, all of the “play scripts” identified by Petitioner in the prior art are files. Reply 6. We agree with Petitioner that we need not determine which party’s construction applies for purposes of our analysis. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “reservation. Patent Owner now proposes the following construction: “arrangement regarding reserved resources of a streaming system.” PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner cites the specification and Mr. Adam’s testimony 13 for support. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 10:33−37; Adams Decl. ¶ 110). Mr. Adam relies on the ’636 patent specification, which states that “[a] reservation is a feature that enables the streaming system 102 to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 10:33–37. Further, “[t]he reservation uniquely identifies the viewer 118 or 120 and the customized play script.” Id. at 10:27–28, 10:34–37. The Federal Circuit has recognized that “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess,” and “[i]n such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Based on the description in the specification, we construe “reservation” as “a feature that enables the streaming system 102 to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” Ex. 1001, 10:33–37.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Neither party points out any meaningful difference between the parties’ assessments. We therefore apply Patent Owner’s more detailed assessment on the level of ordinary skill in the art. This proposal is consistent with the ’636 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by 16 the testimony of Mr. Adams. Adams Decl. ¶¶ 27–29. However, our analysis would be the same under either party’s description.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,135,636 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,135,636
• Hulu, LLC v. Sito Mobile R&D IP, LLC And Sito Mobile, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2022 · IPR2021-00308 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 39, 40, 45, 47, 52, 68, 98–101, 103, 105, 111, and 115–117 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “streaming media. When asked “what is the point of having commercials in streaming media” during cross-examination, Mr. Adams admitted that “[t]here are a number of different reasons why you might want to include commercials,” such as “to generate revenue for the service.” Ex. 1083, 40:10–18 (emphasis added). We agree with and credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that such an artisan would have recognized the benefits of applying Wolfe’s teachings of targeted advertisements, revenue sharing, and settlement recording to Madison’s system—e.g., “tracking played advertisements to more accurately report effectiveness and tailor billings and revenues based on ad impressions by making ‘an accounting . . . of the total advertising air time used and . . . [billing] advertisers . . . accordingly.’” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 295– 296, 309; Ex. 1044, 1:24–31, 1:43–48, 1:55–60, 5:37–44. “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida, 425 U.S. at 282).” slip op. at 76

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

    “’887 patent makes clear that the presentation itself, not the presentation ID, “may include special instructions, such as special media sequencing instructions, late binding media instructions, and/or special routing instructions.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–32. Therefore, Patent Owner’s argument that the presentation ID is an instruction executed by the communication device “to obtain at least one portion of the requested media,” as required by the claims, is not supported by the ’993 application, the ’519 application, or the draft application, and it is also inconsistent with the Specification of the ’887 patent. For the foregoing reasons, we find that none of the three applications provides adequate written description for the claimed “instructions.”” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 8,825,887 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,825,887
• Hulu, LLC v. Sito Mobile R&D IP, LLC And Sito Mobile, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00158 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 19–21, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Eyal and Wiser; claims 1–3 and 6 are also unpatentable over Madison and Holtz.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “I. INTRODUCTION Hulu, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1−3, 5, 6, 19−21, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 33 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,026,673 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’673 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”), 1. SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC and SITO Mobile Ltd. (collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). On April 20, 2021, we instituted the instant inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims for all of the grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 15

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

    “server to validate and authenticate the user requesting the media file.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150−151. “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has articulated an adequate reason to combine the teachings of Eyal and Wiser. 8. Conclusion on Obviousness over Eyal and Wiser” slip op. at 50

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

    “For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Petitioner that neither the” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 9,026,673 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,026,673

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.