- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, sensor system design and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 26. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’178 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring-type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,868,178 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00068 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Capalik and King.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argued that we should not institute both petitions. Paper 8, 1–5. Patent Owner argued that the challenged claims are not long and Petitioner’s concerns about the construction of “association” in limitation 1(b) are “contrived.” Id. at 1. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner could have addressed all of the challenged claims in one petition. Id. Noting that both the ’70 petition and the instant Petition challenge all claims of the ’872 patent, Patent Owner argued that the number of claims challenged does not necessitate multiple petitions. Id. at 2–3. Patent Owner also argued that Petitioner could have waited until closer to the statutory due the claim language “association” in the related district court proceeding. Id. at 4–5. Considering the facts holistically, we determine the totality of the circumstances here supports Petitioner’s position that two petitions are warranted. Petitioner has challenged a large number of claims directed to complex subject matter. And the task of challenging those claims is complicated by the potential for Patent Owner to argue for a narrow construction of “association” in limitation 1(b). Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner would not have needed to file multiple petitions if it had waited longer to file a petition is not persuasive. Paper 8, 4–5. Patent Owner does not explain why a petitioner should be encouraged to delay the filing of its petition. See id. And the parties appear to agree that Patent Owner has not weighed in on whether “association” should be interpreted narrowly or broadly. Prelim. Reply. 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 8. The present circumstances, considered as a whole, warrant two petitions challenging the claims of the ’872 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner explains the applicable level of skill in the art as follows: As of June 24, 2010, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience. A POSITA would also have had a working knowledge of software security analysis and dynamic malware analysis. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 13. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’872 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We first look to the claim language itself. It recites “transmitting to one or more computer systems,” not transmitting to “devices.” Ex. 1001, 19:53. Although the claim language “one or more computer systems” may encompass “protected network devices,” we do not see a reason that its plain meaning would be limited to network devices, much less protected network devices. Nor do we see a reason that the plain meaning of “one or more computer systems” is limited to protected network devices to the exclusion of a network that includes protected network devices and one or more other components. In support of its suggestion that the claim language “one or more computer systems” excludes a combination of protected network devices and one or more other components, Patent Owner cites the claim language “for preventing future attacks, to the one or more computer systems.” Prelim. Resp. 20–24; Prelim. Sur-Reply 1–2. But Patent Owner does not provide reasoning or evidence persuading us to read the claim language more narrowly than its plain meaning, which encompasses preventing future attacks to a computer system that includes both protected network devices and one or more other components.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,954,872 - PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01489 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Cohen anticipates the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Identity of terminology is not required for a claim element to be met directly by the prior art. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted) (“[T]his is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”). For anticipation, we take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 13
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Wrinkl, Inc. v. Slack Technologies, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00620 (D. Del. May 23, 2024). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also states that a “second IPR was filed against the same patent in proceeding IPR2024-01490.” Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner does not argue that we should exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Petitioner uses more than one petition to challenge the ’731 patent. challenges the alleged priority date of the ’731 patent (IPR2024-01489) (‘First Petition’) and the second petition assumes that the Patent Owner’s claimed priority date is valid, and addresses prior art references predating that priority date (IPR2024-01490) (‘Second Petition’).” Ex. 1019, 1. In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary” including “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” CTPG 59. Such is the case here. Patent Owner does not file any Preliminary Response or other paper disputing Petitioner’s use of two petitions to challenge the claims of the ’731 patent. Based on the record before us, we consider the merits of both petitions because Petitioner’s stated reasons for filing two petitions are consistent with the CTPG. See generally Ex. 1019 (citing CTPG, 59 (“the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references)). C. The ’731 Patent” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner first must raise the issue of entitlement to a claimed priority date by “identifying, specifically, the features, claims, and ancestral application or applications allegedly lacking § 112 support for the claims based on the identified features.” Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 8 at 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014); Mission Integrated Techs., LLC v. Joshua Clemente, IPR2023-01285, Paper 16 at 18 (PTAB Feb. 23, 2024). Then, Patent Owner must make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier filing date(s), in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised by the petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“two years of experience in the graphical user interface field” or, alternatively “a master’s degree in computer science (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,973,731 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2024 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR of claims 1–10 and 12–18; Petitioner met the institution threshold for claim 1 based on obviousness over Schröder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In applying § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). We also consider the non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part), which “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art At this stage of the proceeding, there is no dispute about the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, and two years of experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. A POSITA would have been familiar with sensor system design and signal experience, and vice versa. Ex. 1002 ¶ 21. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’178 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with the parties that it is not necessary for us to provide an express construction for any claim term for purposes of determining whether to institute a post-grant review. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 25.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Petitioner relies on Dr. Anthony’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood Figures 6–8 as showing a cavity as recited in claim 1 and the battery must be arranged within that cavity because “[o]therwise, if the battery did not fit within the ‘finger-ring,’ the ‘finger-ring’ either has (1) a battery that sticks out or is exposed to the environment or (2) a wired connection to power its components, which is contrary to the intent of having a portable, wearable device.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 166. Dr. Anthony opines that “[a] POSITA would have understood that the battery’s location within the cavity is the ‘first portion’ of the cavity because the battery necessarily occupies space in the cavity.” Id. ¶ 168. Such testimony, when viewed along with the rest of Petitioner’s showing, provides sufficient basis for institution.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,868,178 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2023 · IPR2023-00531 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 3–9, and 20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that Flore anticipates them.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 3–9, and 20 of the ’988 patent. Accordingly, we grant the Petition and institute an inter partes review of the ’988 patent. IV. ORDER It is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1, 3–9, and 20 of the ’988 patent is instituted with respect to the ground set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 33
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We have reviewed the evidence and find that, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently shows on this record that Flore teaches “routing the communication from the first DMA gateway [Inter-AS Anchor 152] to the target device [UE 110] by relaying the communication from the first DMA gateway [Inter-AS Anchor 152] to the second DMA gateway [SGSN 142] via the DMA gateway communications network [via a Gn interface].” Given that we find, at this stage, that Petitioner sufficiently shows that Flore teaches every limitation in the claim, on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that claim 1 of the ’988 patent is anticipated by Flore.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this time, we decline to adopt a construction of the claim term “DMA server” that would limit its scope to include a P2P connection with other DMA servers. The claims do not include a limitation calling for the “DMA server” to be connected to other DMA servers via a P2P connection. There is a single mention of “a DMA server” in the claim and its scope is not limited so as to be connected to other DMA servers via a P2P connection. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, claim 1[b]: “a DMA server.” Nor does the present record sufficiently support the view that a POSITA would have understood the claim term “DMA server” to be necessarily limited to one that it is connected to other DMA servers via a P2P connection.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“II. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law To “demonstrate anticipation, the proponent must show ‘that the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 102. Because the challenged claims of the ’988 patent have an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 throughout this Decision. invention.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 458 F.3d 1310, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The prior-art document “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Id. (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Hence, a patent challenger cannot rely on portions from different, unrelated embodiments in a prior-art document to demonstrate anticipation. See id. at 1369, 1371. The “disclosure of a limited number of combination possibilities” may anticipate a claim. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Hence, a reference may anticipate “if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The “dispositive question regarding anticipation [is] whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [reference’s] teaching” that it discloses every claim element arranged as in the claim. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,855,988 - PTAB · Apr 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01528 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 15–19 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Yong anticipates claim 15.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 15‒19 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s parallel filing of four petitions warrants denying all four petitions. Prelim. Resp. 7 (“Petitioner’s abuse of process in filing four petitions justifies discretionary denial of all of the petitions.”). Accordingly, given that Petitioner ranks the instant Petition “1,” we decline to deny institution in this proceeding. Additionally, under the circumstances presented, where Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s observation that the ’435 patent has very long claims, we conclude it is not unreasonable for Petitioner to file multiple petitions. In our view, even if it were accurate, Patent Owner’s argument that the claims’ “narrowness” reflects quality examination does not detract from Petitioner’s argument that the length of the claims warrants more than one petition. Prelim. Resp. 6.” slip op. at 33
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Weighing the arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314 of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that Yong qualifies as prior art. Hulu at 13. As Petitioner asserts, the KIPO logo and the multiple instances of publication number 10-2007-0087811 on Yong’s first page provide some evidence of authenticity. Ex. 1009, 1; Reply to Prelim. Resp. 3.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner contends that [a] person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the claimed priority date would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field or equivalent coursework or experience, and one to two years of experience with mobile device applications and retail POS systems. (Shamos ¶ 34.) More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. (Id.) Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 18. For purposes of deciding whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the ’435 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,803,435 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · PGR2021-00109 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 15–17, and 21–23 are unpatentable; the revised contingent motion to amend is granted for claim 32 and denied for claims 24–31, 33–35, 38–40, and 44–46.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 22
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Accordingly, based on the foregoing and the complete record before” slip op. at 38
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“C. Claim Construction We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteMixed
“persuaded by Petitioner that the limitations “a channel-shaped portion configured to receive the structural component” and “a base configured to receive an end portion of the structural component thereon to support the structural component” would not have informed the skilled artisan, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of the claimed invention. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“When the meaning of the claim would reasonably be understood by persons of ordinary skill when read in light of the specification, the claim is not subject to invalidity upon departure from the protocol of ‘antecedent basis.’”). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,021,867 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,021,867 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Mobile Equity Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00380 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim 1–19.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“In inter partes reviews, the petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To institute an inter partes review, a petitioner must show “a reasonable likelihood” of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with point-of-sale and payment processing systems, and systems.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–84). For purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill and does not propose its own level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 30 n.24. We adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill only to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’236 patent and the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Citing Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes interpretations for “mobile device,” “point-of-sale terminal,” “mobile enablement center,” “service data point,” and “register.” Pet. 10–16. Patent Owner responds that “[t]he Board does not need to expressly construe any claim elements to deny the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 10. likelihood of prevailing does not depend on a particular interpretation for any claim term, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“asserted merchant identifier in Krasnyansky, the site’s creditID, identifies a merchant terminal, as required by claim 1. As Patent Owner points out, Krasnyansky expressly discloses that creditID identifies an account in a database, not a terminal. Prelim. Resp. 31–36. In particular, Krasnyansky teaches that “both the Wallet and the seller-site must present a unique identifier to the Payserver,” the identifiers “are the key[s] to all accounts in the Payserver’s database,” “each account has a pair of identifiers, both uniquely identifying the account in the database,” “[o]ne of the two identifiers is used in all account-debiting operations,” the identifiers “are seller-site requires the debitID of the Wallet and the creditID of the site.” Ex. 1005, 9:10–18; see also id. at 36:28–37:8 (describing similarly). Petitioner appears to argue that identifying an account in a database would also identify the merchant and merchant terminal. See Pet. 24–26. Petitioner, however, does not point to any portion of Krasnyansky that supports a site’s creditID further identifying a Web site or the computer hosting the Web site. See id. Krasnyansky, instead, only provides express support for the site’s creditID identifying the account. See Ex. 1005, 9:10–18. Krasnyansky also indicates that a site nickname, rather than the site’s creditID, identifies the Web site in one embodiment (see id. at 15:20–22), which further undermines Petitioner’s argument that identifying the account would identify the Web site and the computer running and hosting a Web site. Furthermore, Krasnyansky describes using site nickname and creditID to complete the transaction without any need for identifying the computer running and hosting debit-site 400. See id. at 15:12–16:22. Petitioner does not address these portions of Krasnyansky. See Pet. 24–26. Petitioner, thus, does not argue sufficiently that Krasnyansky requires identifying the computer running and hosting a site to complete any transaction. See id.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,589,236 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Mobile Equity Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00379 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, chiefly due to the missing terminal-identifier showing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with point-of-sale and payment processing systems, and industry practices and standards for point-of-sale and payment processing systems.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–89). For purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill and does not propose its own level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 30 n.24. determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’058 patent and the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Citing Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because determining whether Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing does not depend on a particular interpretation for any claim term, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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.’”) (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As discussed below, even if we applied Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “terminal,” we would come to the same determination.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“asserted terminal identifier in Krasnyansky, the site’s creditID, identifies a terminal, as required by claim 1. As Patent Owner points out, Krasnyansky expressly discloses that creditID identifies an account in a database, not a terminal. Prelim. Resp. 31–34. In particular, Krasnyansky teaches that “both the Wallet and the seller-site must present a unique identifier to the Payserver,” the identifiers “are the key[s] to all accounts in the Payserver’s database,” “each account has a pair of identifiers, both uniquely identifying the account in the database,” “[o]ne of the two identifiers is used in all account-debiting operations,” the identifiers “are called debitID and creditID,” and a “payment transaction from a Wallet to a seller-site requires see also id. at 36:28–37:8 (describing similarly). Petitioner appears to suggest that identifying an account in a database would also identify the seller’s Web site and, in turn, identify the computer running and hosting the seller’s Web site. See Pet. 24–26. Petitioner, however, does not point to any portion of Krasnyansky that supports a site’s creditID further identifying the Web site or the computer hosting the Web site. See id. Krasnyansky, instead, only provides express support for the site’s creditID identifying the account. See Ex. 1006, 9:10–18. Krasnyansky also indicates that a site nickname, rather than the site’s creditID, identifies the Web site in one embodiment (see id. at 15:20–22), which further undermines Petitioner’s argument that identifying the account would identify the computer running and hosting a Web site. Furthermore, Krasnyansky describes using site nickname and creditID to complete the transaction without any need for identifying the computer running and hosting debit-site 400. See id. at 15:12–16:22. Petitioner does not address these portions of Krasnyansky. See Pet. 24–26. Petitioner, thus, does not argue sufficiently that Krasnyansky requires identifying the computer running and hosting a site to complete any transaction. See id. Even if we adopted Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “terminal” to mean “any type of computer which enables the input of information” so that “terminal identifier” would identify such a computer, Petitioner does not explain adequately how a site’s creditID identifies any computer when Krasnyansky expressly describes that creditID identifies an account in a database. See Pet. 24–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–117.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,535,058 - PTAB · Mar 17, 2022 · PGR2021-00109 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Institution
Instituted post-grant review of claims 1–23 on all grounds; petitioner showed that claims 1–12, 15–17, and 21–23 were more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“pertinence of Timony’s disclosure or of the combined teachings of Gilb ’792/Bundy and Timony/Bundy (and Tsukamoto/Bundy), and did not issue a rejection based on such disclosure or combined teachings, and that this constitutes Examiner error. As discussed below in Section III, we determine that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that at least claims 1–12, 15–17, and 21–23 of the ’867 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, Becton Dickinson factor (e) weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“Owner’s arguments as supported by the above-cited evidence, and find Patent Owner’s proffered construction reasonable. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we construe the limitation “each extension flange lying in an extension flange plane” to mean “for each extension flange an extension flange plane is within the extent of the extension flange from the channel-shaped portion to the connection portion.”” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“we are persuaded that Petitioner’s cited evidence provides sufficient rational reasons for purposes of institution to combine Tsukamoto and Bundy with a reasonable expectation of success, and sufficiently supports Petitioner’s contention that independent claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Tsukamoto and Bundy. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely” slip op. at 85
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,021,867
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.