• Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00989 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,427,539 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,427,539
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00775 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27 and 28 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the petitioner did not establish that Olgaard or Acharya was prior art; the revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Relying on Dr. Freedman’s testimony, Unified argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) an undergraduate degree in electrical and computing engineering or a closely related field; and (2) two or more years of experience in wireless content transmission,” where “[m]ore relevant experience could compensate for less education, and vice versa.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–38). Flexiworld does not contest Unified’s description of the level of ordinary skill for this proceeding. See PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 67). Because Unified’s description is supported by uncontroverted testimonial evidence and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’257 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:20–5:35 (“Technical Field” and “Background” sections of the ’257 patent, describing background knowledge relating to wireless content transmission between electronic devices).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Unified argues that “all terms should be given their plain meaning,” and does not propose any explicit constructions. See Pet. 8. In the context of this proceeding, Flexiworld agrees. See PO Resp. 29. We do not find it necessary to explicitly construe any terms to resolve the issues in this proceeding. 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 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “2. Conclusion as to Obviousness For the reasons above, we determine that evidence independent of inventor testimony corroborates (1) a conception date no later than October 22, 2000 and (2) reasonably continuous diligence in reducing the claimed invention to practice until January 19, 2001. Having considered the evidence as a whole under a rule-of-reason analysis, we determine that Unified has not shown that the conception date for the claimed invention was on or after October 24, 2000, or that the inventors did not exercise reasonably continuous diligence during the critical period between October 24, 2000 and January 19, 2001. Unified relies on a priority date of October 24, 2000 for Olgaard and a priority date of December 22, 2000 for Acharya. See Pet. 1–2 & n.2; see also Ex. 1005, code (63); Ex. 1007, codes (22), (43). However, the corroborated conception date for claims 27 and 28 antedates the above priority dates for both Olgaard and Acharya. See supra Section III.C.1. Thus, Unified has not shown that either Olgaard or Acharya is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2006). Unified provides no theory of obviousness that does not depend on either Olgaard or Acharya being prior art. See Pet. 2, 8–80.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “claimed inventions were conceived no later than October 22, 2000, and Unified has not shown to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. First, we find credible Mr. Chang’s testimony that Exhibit 2013 and other related drafts, including their filenames and metadata, have not been altered. Ex. 2031 ¶ 1. We regard the metadata as the most reliable indicator of the latest date each draft was completed. Although the filename dates may differ from the metadata dates, these minor differences do not call into question the reliability of the metadata as the last date on which the drafts were modified. Most significantly, the “last modified” date for Exhibit 2013 is October 22, 2000. That the inventors produced at least three other drafts and then filed a provisional application just ten days later on November 1, 2000 further supports a conception date before October 24, 2000. Ex. 2031 ¶ 6; Ex. 2016; Ex. 2040.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,836,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,836,257
• Kioxia America, Inc. / Kioxia Corporation v. Bitmicro LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Oct 24, 2023 · IPR2023-00742 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 9–15, 32, and 34 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that this standard has been met and institute inter partes review on the grounds presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a similar field, and at least two years of work experiences in the computer memory or data storage industry.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57–59). Petitioners further contend “less formal education” could be “substituted . . . with additional relevant work experience, and vice versa.” Id. at 6. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioners’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’740 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner proposes that we not engage in any claim construction at this stage of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioners’ grounds each include fundamental flaws and fail to establish the unpatentability of every challenged claim” and states, “The Board does not need to conduct any construction of the above-identified claim terms in order to deny this Petition on the merits.” Id. Patent Owner does not say what we should do as far as claim construction if we institute inter partes review. See id. Patent Owner does not argue that Petitioners proposed constructions are incorrect or flawed in any respect. Based on this record, we adopt the uncontested constructions proposed by Petitioners. If Patent Owner contests any of these constructions or believes any claim construction is necessary for purposes of the final written decision, the Patent Owner should so indicate in its response filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “A mapping table for optimizing memory operations performed by an electronic storage device in response to receiving an I/O transaction request initiated by a host, said mapping table comprising: Petitioners do not take a position as to whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. The presentation in the Petition with regard to the preamble begins with, “[t]o the extent the preamble is limiting, Sukegawa discloses . . . ” Pet. 25. The Petition goes on to present a showing that all the elements of the preamble are taught by Sukegawa. Id. at 25–26. Patent Owner also fails to take a position as to whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. See generally Prelim. Resp. As the showing in the Petition that Sukegawa discloses the preamble is undisputed (see id.), we determine that it is unnecessary for us to determine, at least at this stage, whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. We shall proceed to consider the showing in the Petition as to the preamble of claim 1.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,010,740
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. / Beijing Boe Display Technology Co. et al. v. Element Capital Commercial Company Pte. LtdInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00696 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claim 1 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any asserted Inukai-based ground rendered it unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) . The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner proposes that no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding. Pet. 18. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 4. We determine that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related field.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27); Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–23). The parties, however, disagree about the work experience one of ordinary skill would have had. Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have had “at 1 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had “at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of display device technology.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 21–23). Both parties agree that “[a]dditional education can remedy lack of work experience and vice versa.” Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 5. We note that the ’760 patent and challenged claim concern both display device technology and integrated circuit design for display devices. The ’760 patent and challenged claim do not appear to concern integrated circuit manufacturing processes. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related field and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design for display devices. However our decision in this proceeding would not change if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “sufficiently show that Inukai 576 discloses a wiring portion that “crosses” a control line. As noted above, Petitioner acknowledges that the right protrusion’s “full outline is not explicitly shown,” but contends that one of ordinary skill “would have understood or found obvious that the protrusion would have been the same length as the protrusion on the right, due to the ‘endcap rule.’” Pet. 51. However, based on the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to provide sufficient support that the “endcap rule” is universally applied. In this regard, we find reasonable Dr. Silzars’s testimony that the “endcap rule” is, “at best, a design generalization which may be used in some applications for semiconductor manufacturing, heavily dependent on what materials are used, what the purpose of the semiconductor [is] and especially the manufacturing process.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 60. Petitioner relies on the Borodovsky patent, but Borodovsky merely describes the general concept that an endcap of a transistor gate may extend some minimum distance beyond an active region so as to ensure that any rounding of the endcap does not occur over the active region. Ex. 1010, 4:21–33; Ex. 2001 ¶ 63; Pet. 52–53. Borodovsky, however, does not suggest how the rule would have been applied to Inukai 576. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 63. Petitioner also does not point to anything in Borodovsky that states that the “endcap rule” requires gate electrodes of the same size or length. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. Borodovsky’s design rule merely requires that the endcap extends at least a minimum length, not an exact length, beyond the active region, and states that “other size up amounts may be used.” Ex. 1010, 9:42–46; Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. Thus, assuming Inukai 576’s protrusions are of different length, as pictured, Petitioner’s evidence does not show persuasively that the shorter protrusion would violate the “endcap rule” merely because it is shorter than the other protrusion. We note that Dr. Liu testifies that one of ordinary skill would “have known that in order to maintain a consistent current voltage characteristic for the double-gate transistors, the two channel portions of the double-gate structure would be made as uniformly identical as possible.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 114. Dr. Liu, however, does not provide any evidence or citation for this statement. Id. Dr. Liu also states that “[t]he endcap rule applies to all gates fabricated in the transistor,” so one of ordinary skill “would have understood that the two gates over transistor 107 have equal length,” and thus “the two protrusions would extend equal distance beyond the semiconductor layer.” Id. Again, however, Dr. Liu does not explain why the “endcap rule” would require or suggest this outcome, particularly because the description of the “endcap rule” merely requires that gates have a certain minimum length beyond the semiconductor layer they intersect, not that the gates be of equal length. Id.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,525,760
• Truist Bank v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstituted
  PTAB · Jun 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01593 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Truist would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “On June 21, 2022, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Director”) issued a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. (“Director Memo”). Notably, the Director stated that “the PTAB [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Director Memo at 3. With this guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding based on Fintiv because Truist has provided a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1028; see also Prelim. Sur-reply 1–2 (USAA acknowledging receipt of the Truist’s Sotera stipulation, and then stating “USAA understands that under the June 21, 2022 Memorandum issued by Director Vidal, such a stipulation is dispositive of the Fintiv analysis”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “§ 42.4(a), we may not institute an IPR unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2020). Taking into account USAA’s Preliminary Response, Truist’s Preliminary Reply, and USAA’s Preliminary Sur-reply, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Truist would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–19 of the ’090 patent as unpatentable. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’090 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “For purposes of this proceeding, Truist contends that “the plain meaning of each claim term can be applied.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30 (Declaration of Dr. David Doermann in support of Petition)). For purposes of its Preliminary Response only, “[USAA] does not assert that any claim terms need to be construed” to determine whether the Petition meets the reasonable likelihood threshold standard for institution. Prelim. Resp. 18. Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Based on the preliminary record, we are not persuaded by USAA’s argument for two reasons. First, USAA’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the disputed limitation, which merely requires, “when the monitoring criterion is determined to be satisfied, control the image capture device to capture an image depicting the target document in the field of view of the image capture device.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (explaining that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Based on the arguments and evidence currently before us, we are persuaded that the plain language of this limitation is agnostic as to whether the phrase “control[ling] the image capture device to capture an image” requires automatic or manual image capture.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,818,090
• Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00731 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand

  Claim 28 is unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Farley; Martin qualifies as prior art because Dr. Moran’s contribution made him a joint inventor of the relied-on disclosure.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’560 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 19:14–19:62. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’560 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Dr. Moran’s contribution to the Martin reference, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony credible over that of Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin, because, as the Federal Circuit noted, because the latter testimony conflicts with other evidence of record. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088. Cheyer’s and Martin’s testimony that Dr. Moran’s role was administrative and non-technical with respect to the core infrastructure of OAA is belied by a separate article describing OAA that includes the facilitator and lists Dr. Moran as the lead author. Ex. 1174, 1–2, 4. Indeed, the OAA article lists Dr. Moran and Mr. Cheyer as authors but excludes Mr. Martin. Id. Although Mr. Cheyer disagrees with the article’s description of the origins of OAA and the facilitator (Ex. 2037, 78:23–79:12 (Mr. Cheyer asserting that he “would not agree in the characterization of Open Agent Architecture grew out of [earlier] works” as described in the article)), Mr. Cheyer admits patent]” (id. at 1088), “which is a continuation-in-part of the application that resulted in the ’115 patent” (id. at 1086). in his deposition that Dr. Moran was extremely technical, and probably made technical contributions to OAA (id. at 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4). Similarly, Mr. Martin’s testimony also supports that Dr. Moran “may have made contributions to the technological development of either interfaces for use with OAA, agents used with OAA, or systems based on OAA.” Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10. When viewed in light of Dr. Moran’s status as a joint inventor on the closely related ’931 patent (Ex. 2002, code (75)) and as a lead author of the substantive paper that discusses OAA’s early development, we find Mr. Martin’s and Mr. Cheyer’s admissions—that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA—undermine their testimony that Dr. Moran’s inclusion as an author on the Martin reference was a matter of administrative respect and not a result of a technical contribution. See PO Remand 11; PO Resp. 50–51. Indeed, we find Cheyer and Martin’s general description of Dr. Moran—as an administrator without technical contributions to the Martin reference—is not supported by the full record, which instead supports Dr. Moran’s contributions to technical work that involves the Martin reference, such as contemporary papers and the ’931 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1174, 2002. In sum, the testimony and contemporary evidence supports Dr. Moran’s testimony that his conception and contribution to the Martin reference, the facilitator, was technical and not merely administrative. Ex. 1007 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention. Rather, we find that the Petition persuasively explains how Martin discloses a facilitator agent arranged to coordinate cooperative task completion within a distributed computing environment having autonomous service-providing electronic agents. Pet. 39; Ex. 1002 ¶ 100. Further, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that Farley discloses how agent functionality can be distributed across multiple processes. Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–102. Finally, Petitioner also provides persuasive reasons as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Martin and Farley, including reasons expressly provided by Farley. Pet. 40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–104.” slip op. at 28

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 26–30. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00728 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claim 63 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Kohn, finding Martin was prior art because Moran was a joint inventor.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner relies upon is sufficient to establish the degree to which the reliedon portions of the Martin reference were conceived by Dr. Moran, and the significance of those contributions to the overall anticipating disclosure of the Martin reference. See Google, 34 F.4th at 1086–88; Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner is not merely relying on Dr. Moran’s authorship to establish inventorship. PO Remand 8 (citing In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455 (C.C.P.A. 1982)). Instead, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes how his background led to his contributions to the multiple facilitator architectures disclosed in Martin and in the ’115 patent specification. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23– 34 (OAA project), 35–39 (OAA paper). In view of Dr. Moran’s testimony, we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’115 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 18:56–19:36. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’115 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id. Based on the record, the Federal Circuit’s remand squarely asks whether Dr. Moran’s stated contributions to the conception of the facilitator should be credited over Cheyer and Martin’s conflicting testimony regarding his lack of technical contribution. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088 (stating that “[t]he testimony of Dr. Moran, if credited, might well establish that he was a co-inventor of the particular portions of the Martin reference relied on by Google in, and relevant to, the challenge to particular claims”). When Dr. Moran’s testimony is viewed in combination with the supporting evidence,7 we find that incorporation of the facilitator in general, which is also found in the specification and claims, persuasively supports Dr. Moran’s testimony regarding his inventive contribution to the Martin reference. Specifically, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony persuasively supported and credible over the conflicting testimony and evidence offered by Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin. See Pet. Reply 12–13; Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10 (Cheyer admission that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA); Ex. 2037, 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Upon weighing the parties’ testimony and evidence, we agree with Petitioner that sufficient evidence supports the technical contributions of Dr. Moran to OAA, including admissions by Mr. Martin that Dr. Moran made such contributions (see Ex. 2038, 116:2–116:8, 117:7–119:10; see also id. at 73:3–73:15); contemporaneous papers showing Dr. Moran’s contribution to the OAA including a facilitator (see Ex. 1170; Ex. 1174, 1– 2), and the ’931 patent (Ex. 2002). See Pet. Reply 5–7, 8, 12–13; Pet. Remand 11. In particular, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes that he contributed to Section 4.5, the facilitator that plays an essential role in the OAA, that differs from prior art agents, and that is found in the ’115 specification. We find Dr. Moran’s contributions to be significant when measured against the full anticipating Martin reference, and to render him a joint inventor of the Martin reference. Google, 34 F.4th at 1085 (quoting Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358). 5. Conclusion Based on the full record, we find that Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Moran is an inventive entity to the Martin reference. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established that Martin is “by another” and is prior art under § 102(a) to the ’115 patent. We next turn to the sole remaining ground based on the Martin reference to determine the patentability of the remaining challenged claim.” slip op. at 26

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

    “combination of Martin and Kohn. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Olsen, provides persuasive testimony and evidence that Martin teaches compound goals and a skilled artisan would have been motivated in view of Kohn to modify Martin’s facilitator agent to interpret a compound goal that includes both local and global constraints. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. Dr. Olsen’s testimony does not evince hindsight, but instead supports the finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan could use compound goals required in Martin and apply the type of constraints (global and local) disclosed in Kohn. Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16. In addition, Dr. Olsen testified, the proposed implementation “would have been a mere combination of known components and technologies . . . , according to known methods, to produce predictable results.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We do not agree that this case presents the same technical issues raised in G.B.T. Inc. v. Walletex Microelectronics Ltd., IPR2018-00326, Paper 60 at 16–17 (PTAB June 25, 2019), where the petitioner’s declarant failed to show how the combination would have achieved desired results and features from the combination of the circuits. Here, Dr. Olsen identified known compound goals in Martin to which Kohn’s local and global constraints are applicable. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. In view of the level of skill in the art and the testimony of Dr. Olsen (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88; Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16), we find that Petitioner establishes persuasive motivation to combine the software teachings of Kohn’s constraints into the goals of Martin and how the references would have been combined by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 29

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 25–28. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2023-00119 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9–15, 17, and 18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Rosenberger alone or with Basye.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Examples of such errors may include misapprehending or overlooking specific material teachings of the relevant prior art or misapplying the law in a material way. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8–9 n.9. For this analysis, Becton, Dickinson Factors (c), (e), and (f) are particularly relevant. See id. at 10.” slip op. at 22

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

    “detailed, comprehensive, and substantive analysis. See Pet. 22–49. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and arguments, and for purposes of this Decision, based on the evidence and arguments before us, we determine for the reasons stated in the Petition (id.) that the evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are unpatentable. a) Conclusion for Claims 1, 9, and 17 Based on the arguments and evidence in the record before us, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are anticipated by Rosenberger.” slip op. at 33

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards “To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose each and every element of the claim, either explicitly or inherently.” Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th 900, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Eli Lilly & 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296–07 (2011), took effect on September 16, 2011. The changes to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in the AIA do not apply to any patent application filed before March 16, 2013. Because the application for the patent at issue in this proceeding claims priority to applications filed after March 16, 2013, we refer to the AIA version of the statute. 3 U.S. Patent No. 8,340,975 B1, Dec. 25, 2012, Ex. 1003 (“Rosenberger”). 4 U.S. Patent Application Publ. No. 2014/01636978 A1, June 12, 2014, Ex. 1013 (“Basye”). 5 Dr. Johnson earned undergraduate degrees in Computer Science Engineering and in Electrical Engineering, a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, and a Ph.D. degree “with a doctoral dissertation focused on speech processing and automatic speech recognition.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 6. He currently is “the Department Chair and a Full Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Kentucky.” Id. ¶ 5. His extensive experience in academia and research is summarized in his testimony. See id. ¶¶ 5–11; see also id., App. A (Dr. Johnson’s CV). Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharms., Inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “While those elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, the reference need not disclose the elements in the very same terms used by the patent.” Id. (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990))). “The question of what a reference teaches and whether it describes every element of a claim is a question for the finder of fact.” Id. (citing Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). As further explained in Net MoneyIN, unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Id.; see also Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). “The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989).” slip op. at 8

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

    “or limitation in dependent claims 4, 6, 12, and 14 is disclosed in Rosenberger or Basye. Pet. 61–69. Petitioner also provides reasons why a person of ordinary skill would use the energy management technology of Basye in the Rosenberger device. Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to modify Rosenberger to incorporate Basye’s teachings such that the ‘control device’ of Rosenberger would transmit its WS [weighted signal] message based on determining that its hotword score satisfies a threshold.” Id. at 69–70 (citing Ex.1002 ¶¶ 212-16). Petitioner also asserts a person of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to modify Rosenberger’s ‘control device’ to utilize a threshold determination as a basis to transmit its WS messages over the network to help reduce ‘false positive’ detections of a ‘trigger phrase’ (or ‘wakeword’).” Pet. 70 (citing Ex.1002, ¶214). The reason why a skilled person would have made this modification, according to Petitioner, is that “Basye explains that the use of ‘thresholding’ can help reduce false positives, which is a situation where a computing device incorrectly determines that speech is present or that speech includes a wakeword. Pet. 70 (citing Ex.1013 ¶¶ 51, 74–75). Moreover, Petitioner also asserts that, as Basye explains, this “helps to conserve power and/or processing resources.” Id. (citing Ex.1002 ¶ 215; Ex.1013 ¶¶ 9–10, 38, 44).” slip op. at 37

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,593,330
• Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2023-00118 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Rosenberger and obviousness over Rosenberger and Basye.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “detailed, comprehensive, and substantive analysis. See Pet. 22–50. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and arguments, and for purposes of this Decision, based on the evidence and arguments before us, we determine for the reasons stated in the Petition (See Pet. 22–50) that the evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are unpatentable. a) Conclusion for Claims 1, 9, and 16 Based on the arguments and evidence in the record before us, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are anticipated by Rosenberger.” slip op. at 37

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Based on the evidence of record, we determine for purposes of this Decision, that (1) the lack of any substantive analysis or discussion of Rosenberger in the examination of the application that matured into the ’398 patent, (2) the prominent role of Rosenberger in this large family of related patents, (3) the double patenting rejection establishing a close relationship between the claims of the ’398 patent and claims that were rejected based on Rosenberger in the ’752 patent, (4) the failure to provide a “suitable” (see MPEP § 1302.14. IV(D), substantive reason why the claims were allowed, and (5) our determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that Rosenberger anticipates several claims in the ’398 patent collectively support Petitioner’s assertion that the Examiner overlooked specific material disclosures in Rosenberger. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8–9 n.9 (“An example of a material error may include . . . overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.”).” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2-4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–63). Dr. Johnson’s Declaration testimony states he considered some of the factors listed above. Ex. 1002 ¶ 61. Dr. Johnson “also considered [his] own experiences working and teaching in the fields of voice and audio processing.” Id. Dr. Johnson testifies that, in his opinion, the level of ordinary skill is as stated by Petitioner. Id. at 62. Patent Owner does not assert a level of ordinary skill, nor does Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See, Prelim. Resp., generally. For purposes of this Decision, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’398 patent, and Dr. Johnson’s undisputed testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill.8” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner states, “the Challenged Claims do not require construction.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner does not propose, or comment on, any claim construction. See, generally Prelim. Resp. We do not perceive the need to construe any claim limitation. Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe the claim preambles here where the construction is not ‘material to the [obviousness] dispute.’” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,134,398
• Truist Bank v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00144 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Oakes supports the claimed mobile device, is not prior art, and the petition therefore did not meet the reasonable-likelihood threshold.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes trial on behalf of the Director”).” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Prelim. Resp. 24–26. We determine that this argument and evidence is more persuasive and better supported than Petitioner’s contrary arguments and evidence. We determine that Patent Owner’s position that a skilled artisan in the relevant time frame would have found clear support for the full-scope of the invention claimed including a “mobile device” as recited and construed as a “handheld computing device” is well-supported. In contrast, Petitioner’s argument and evidence are based on an improper claim construction and lack substantial supporting evidence. For these reasons, we determine that Oakes does provide written description support for “mobile device” as recited in the challenged claims of the ’432 patent and the ’432 patent is entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the application that issued as Oakes. As a result, Oakes is not prior art to the ’432 patent and all the challenges in the Petition fail because they rely on Oakes as prior art.” slip op. at 28

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

    “On this record and for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we construe “mobile device” as “handheld computing device,” because both parties ask us to adopt the District Court’s claim construction. 8 We do not 8 Petitioner does not dispute that we should “adopt[ ] the claim constructions [Patent Owner] advanced and the Court adopted in [the PNC Litigation].” include the phrase “excluding laptops” as part of this construction as the arguments in support of this construction in the Petition are contradicted by the evidence and Petitioner has otherwise failed to support the inclusion of this phrase in the construction.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’432 patent and the cited prior art. For that reason, and in order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,482,432

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.