• 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
• Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with 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). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,807,826
• 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
• Vudu, LLC v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01688 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are unpatentable over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. does it present its own definition. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” “SegmentBase,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its briefing. We need not construe any claim term to resolve any issues before us, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied

    “not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely because paragraph 253 uses the term “[h]ereinafter” before it discloses “two simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited 8 Ex. 2005 is Application No. 16/168,933 (“the ’933 application”). in limitations [38.6], [40.6], and [46.6]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicates a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. MTA 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 38, 40, and 46 do not find sufficient written description support in the ’644 application nor in the ’933 application, whether considered individually or collectively, and thus, these claims contain new matter.” slip op. at 35

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

    “rationale for combining DIS 23009-1 with M20060, Petitioner persuasively contends that: A POSA would have been motivated to add the additional “metadata” described in M20060 to the MPDs described in the DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 references in order to enable the client to choose the most suitable version of media content among alternative versions of media content. For example, M20060 describes that the additional metadata (e.g., the extended accessibility element and the usedWith, equivalentTo, bitDepth, minBitDepth, and maxBitDepth attributes) helps “both users and clients to select appropriate representations” by, for example, “1) supporting accessibility, 2) describing relationships of representations, and 3) describing media’s bit depth.” Moreover, a POSA would have had an expectation of success in modifying the MPDs in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 to include the additional metadata described below because it simply would have been a matter of adding additional metadata to the MPD XML schemas described in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1. Id. (citing Ex. 1094 ¶ 33; Ex. 1097 § 1, 1). Dr. Bestavros persuasively explains that “M20060 expressly references the DIS 23001-6 reference and proposes specific modifications to the MPEG DASH metadata included in the MPD XML schema.” Ex. 1094 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1097 § 1, 1 (introduction of M20060); Ex. 1097, 7 (references cited by M20060)).” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 10,270,830 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,270,830
• Vudu, Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01689 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 11, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend proposing claims 31–35 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor does it present its own definition in any of its briefing. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the Specification of the ’414 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in any of its briefing. 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The newly-cited portion in paragraph 232 does not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited in limitations [31.11], [32.12], and [35.7]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicate a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 31, 32, and 35 do not have sufficient written description support in the ’644 application and the ’092 application, either individually or collectively, and as such, contain new matter.” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “are not entitled to a priority date earlier than March 16, 2012 (the filing date of PCT ’922), because the disclosure of KR10-2011-0023271 does not support at least the limitations of: “the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and the “SegmentTemplate” recited in independent claims 25. Patent Owner has not asserted, after institution, that the challenged claims are entitled to an earlier date. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indicating that patent owner bears a burden of production in arguing that the asserted references are not prior art based on entitlement to an earlier priority date). As such and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that DIS 23001-6, DIS 23009-1, and 3GPP TS 26.247 qualify as prior art to the challenged claims, because Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the references were publicly accessible prior to the applicable priority date of March 16, 2012.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,313,414 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,313,414
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2022 · IPR2021-01599 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Kalanick/Kemler obviousness and Lalancette anticipation challenges.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “discovery.” Pet. 17. We agree with Petitioner that although some time has been invested in the case by the parties and the district court on preliminary matters, the fact discovery, expert discovery, and dispositive motion deadlines have not yet passed, not to mention the deadlines for pre-trial submissions and trial. See Ex. 2005, 3–11 (Scheduling Order). Moreover, we do not give weight to the work done on the issue of patent eligibility under Section 101, as that issue cannot be raised in this inter partes review and therefore does not result in any duplication of work done by the district court.” slip op. at 11

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

    “At the outset, we note that Kemler was not cited during prosecution of the ’987 patent application. See Pet. 20. Thus, for two of the three grounds in the Petition, namely, those relying on Kemler in combination with Kalanick or Kemler, the combination of references before us in this proceeding was not before the examiner. Petitioner points out that neither Kalanick nor Lalancette was used, either alone or in combination with other references, as a basis for a rejection during prosecution. Pet. 21. In fact, neither reference was discussed by the patent owner or the examiner during the prosecution, nor did the examiner make any prior art rejections before allowing the application to issue. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Becton, Dickinson factor (c), which considers the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, points us in the direction of declining to exercise our discretion to deny institution. See Pet. 21. As we will discuss in more detail infra, the Petition analyzes the challenged claims of the ’987 patent in light of the teachings of Kalanick and Lalancette, as well as Kemler, and demonstrates that Kalanick and Lalancette disclose aspects of the claims relied on by the examiner in his reasons for allowance. See Sections IV.F (Kalanick), IV.G (Lalancette).4 This analysis further demonstrates error on the part of the examiner in overlooking teachings of those references material to patentability of the challenged claims. Thus, Becton, Dickinson factor (e), which asks whether petitioner has demonstrated material error on the part of the examiner, weighs against exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 15

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

    “In sum, we determine that for the reasons given Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge to claim 1.” slip op. at 39

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Prelim. Resp. 5. At this stage, we adopt Petitioner’s more general formulation, with the following qualification. We would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner. Our review of the ’987 patent and the cited prior art does not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’987 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. However, at this stage, the arguments presented by the parties do not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and therefore, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,169,987
• ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00112 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 lacks written description support; all petition grounds were included.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “content for output.” Id. at 89. We determine, however, that Petitioner’s argument under Step 2A Prong One that claim 1 is directed to the “obtaining content for output” is not substantially different from the Examiner’s determination that claims 1‒20 recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Compare Pet. 37–88 (citing e.g. Electric Power), with Ex. 2001, 193–194 (also citing Electric Power). In both cases, the argument is the same or substantially the same, i.e., that similarly identified subject matter of the claim is obtaining (collecting) data and displaying (outputting) it. Nevertheless, as to Step 2A Prong Two, we determine that the claims at issue in the ’096 prosecution differ in material ways from the ’903 patent claims at issue in this PGR. Specifically, the ’096 patent claims recite a touchscreen interface not recited in the ’903 patent claims. Additionally, the ’903 claims focus on the “output device” as performing the patented steps but in the ’096 prosecution history the “‘information apparatus performs the patented steps and “is integral to the claims” (as the Applicant argued). See Ex. 2008 [comparison of ’096 prosecution claims and ’903 claims]; Ex. 2001, 150; see also Pet. 89 (“the claims at issue in the ’067 application were different than the claims of the ’903 patent addressed here.”). rejection and arguments in the ’096 prosecution history turns on whether the claims in this PGR recite different elements that must be determined to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., Prong Two of Step 2A). Petitioner argues that an essential element different than the ’096 claims, i.e. the output device, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not amount to an improvement to computer functionality. Pet. 37–72. We find this a close case. Nevertheless, due to the differences in the claims, we determine that the Examiner’s withdrawal of the § 101 rejection in light of the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific technical solution is not substantially the same argument that Petitioner’s presents in the Petition as to Prong Two of Step 2A.” slip op. at 22

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

    “C. Lack of Written Description Support Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description for the same reasons it contends the ’903 patent is PGR eligible. Pet. 13–36. The Specification of the ’903 patent has substantially the same disclosures as the Specification of the ’413 application relied on by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 20) to which the ’903 patent claims priority. Having determined that the disclosures in the ’903 patent Specification and the ’413 application is insufficient to provide written description support for the at least claim 1, we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable for the same reasons. Thus, we exercise our discretion and institute post grant review of claims 1–20 challenged under this ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).” slip op. at 33

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted

    “in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that an output system/device could be (or include) an information apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 24. We determine that Patent Owner’s argument has a logical flaw––i.e., the fact that a particular device could be used alternately as an information apparatus or an output device does not necessarily mean that it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combined information apparatus/output device and have the new combined device perform all the additional functions required by the claims. “The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.” Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rivera”). “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification . . . . It extends only to that which is 1997). Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’413 application teaching that an “output device” can perform the functions of the “information apparatus” including its interactions with the “output device.” For example, claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving, by the output system . . . output data from at least one server of the one or more servers over the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 37:28–32. At this stage, we find sufficiently persuasive Petitioner’s argument, which we discuss above, that the only written description support for an “output device” that performs the claimed functions by accessing the Internet provided by Patent Owner is not an “output device” but an “information apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. at 27–29.” slip op. at 29

  § 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Mayo · Bilski · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 11,029,903
• Netnut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01492 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 17–19, and 21–29 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim across the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review in this proceeding, at this stage we agree with Petitioner’s claim constructions, specifically, that “the devices in question may be configured to operate in different roles and are characterized by the function they perform (i.e., sending or receiving), not by any physical properties.” Pet. 4–5. More specifically, we adopt the district court’s construction, with the clarification that the second server is “a device that is operating in the role of a server and that is not the first client device.” See infra, Section IV.C. This construction is consistent with the extrinsic evidence offered by Petitioner (Ex. 1018, 5), as well as the construction of “server” adopted by the Board in IPR2021-00458, involving a patent similar to the ’319 patent. See IPR2021-00458, Paper 11, 21. As this claim construction is central to this controversy and favors Petitioner, we determine that the merits of the Petition are strong. Thus, this factor strongly favors not exercising our discretion to deny institution. Conclusion In summary, after weighing the factors and taking a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review, we are not persuaded to exercise our discretion to deny review. The strong showing on the merits in the Petition and relatively minor investment in the merits of the validity challenge in district court persuade us that efficiency and integrity of the system would not be served by denying review.” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied

    “We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and Patent Owner’s brief response. Prelim. Resp. 41–43. For the most part, Patent Owner relies on its Fintiv analysis, discussed supra. For example, for the first factor (“whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent”), Petitioner contends that “Petitioner was not involved with the prior IPR challenging the [’319] Patent.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner responds that “[a]lthough NetNut was not involved in the Code200/Teso IPR proceedings, Patent Owner respectfully disagrees that this factor ‘strongly favors institution’ in view of the detailed Fintiv analysis above.” Prelim. Resp. 42. Similarly, for General Plastic factors 2–6, Patent Owner refers to its Fintiv analysis. Id. at 42–43. For factor 7, Patent Owner responds that “Patent Owner is not presently aware of any risk that the Board will be unable to meet the one-year deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1).” Id. at 43. After considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s response, for the reasons discussed in connection with Fintiv, supra, and for the reasons given by Petitioner, we are not persuaded to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under General Plastic.” slip op. at 15

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

    “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 ’319 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “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. 20 (citing Teruya Decl. ¶¶ 25–27). 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. 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. 47. But Patent Owner acknowledges that this definition and Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “are not materially different, at least in terms of affecting an institution decision in this IPR.” Id. (footnote omitted). 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. We agree, however, that this definition and Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “are not materially different,” and that our decision would be the same using either definition. slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,257,319
• Netnut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01493 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 6–11, 13, and 15–24 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that NetNut would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “approximately six months prior to the date of the final written decision issuing in this case. We note, however, that a trial date for this Patent Owner slipped by six months in a case in the Eastern District of Texas (see Ex. 1101, docket entries 65, 509), and, further, that Patent Owner sought extensions in a related court proceeding (Ex. 1102). The presently-scheduled trial date is six months off. Factoring in the potential for changed circumstances, we determine that this factor weighs only slightly in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner

    “01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) (“General Plastic”), the Board set out a list of seven factors to consider when asked to exercise its discretion to deny review of follow-on petitions. Here, Patent Owner states that it relies on Fintiv, which it believes is dispositive, and does not rely on General Plastic. Prelim. Resp. 40, n.28. Nevertheless, Patent Owner addresses certain of the General Plastic factors. For factor 1, Patent Owner asserts that as to Code200 and Teso, who were prior petitioners in IPR2021-01358, Patent Owner “is not presently aware of a significant relationship between NetNut and either Code200 or Teso.” Id. at 40. But Patent Owner disagrees that this factor strongly favors institution. Id. at 40– 41. For General Plastic factors 2–5, Patent Owner relies on the arguments presented for factor 3 of Fintiv, and for General Plastic factor 6, Patent Owner relies on its arguments presented for Fintiv factor 6. Id. at 41. On this record, we determine that, based on the facts of this case, the General Plastic factors weighing against exercising discretion outweigh the facts that favor exercising discretion. For General Plastic factors 2–6, we do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive for the reasons discussed above for Fintiv factors 3 and 6. Additionally, Petitioner was not a petitioner in previous proceedings, nor is there any evidence in the record that Petitioner has a significant relationship with petitioners in an earlier case, as acknowledged by Patent Owner. See Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019–00062, Paper 11 at 9–10 (PTAB April 2, 2019) (precedential) (existence of a “significant relationship” between the different petitioners would weigh in favor of discretionary denial); Prelim. Resp. 40. Accordingly, factor 1 of General Plastic also weighs against the exercise of discretionary denial. Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny inter partes review.” slip op. at 16

  • 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 27

  • 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. 46 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 19). But 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. 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.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 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,484,510

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.