- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01089 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over the Fells-based grounds; the Board adopted the unrebutted petition analyses.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 12) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See 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 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“obvious over Fells. Pet. 7–76. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. Having considered the arguments and evidence before us, we find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 would have been obvious over Fells. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,292,349 - PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-01014 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Barbour would render the challenged claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Anticipation by or Obviousness over Barbour Petitioner asserts that Barbour anticipates and/or renders obvious all challenged claims. Pet. 6, 41–67. Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions. Barbour is the published 2004 application and shares the same disclosure as the ’378 patent. Based on this record, we find Petitioner’s arguments on anticipation and/or obviousness persuasive. Thus, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of the challenged claims. We institute inter partes review of all challenged claims on all of the grounds in the Petition.” slip op. at 21
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledDecided for petitioner
“4. Summary In sum, based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the disclosure of the 2004 application, by itself, fails to enable POSAs to practice the challenged claims without undue experimentation. In addition, Patent Owner has not shown that TC1507 was “known and readily available to the public” as of the filing date of the 2004 application. Therefore, the 2004 application does not enable the challenged claims, and the challenged claims are not entitled to the 2004 priority date. The earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims is, thus, July 6, 2007, which is the filing date of the 2007 application.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“4. Summary In sum, based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the disclosure of the 2004 application, by itself, fails to enable POSAs to practice the challenged claims without undue experimentation. In addition, Patent Owner has not shown that TC1507 was “known and readily available to the public” as of the filing date of the 2004 application. Therefore, the 2004 application does not enable the challenged claims, and the challenged claims are not entitled to the 2004 priority date. The earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims is, thus, July 6, 2007, which is the filing date of the 2007 application.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Thus, the critical issue is not, as Patent Owner asserts, whether “the same application can be simultaneously enabling and not enabling.” Id. at 32. It is whether TC1507 was “known and readily available” to the public at the relevant time. As explained above, for the priority determination, the relevant time is April 30, 2004, the filing date of the 2004 application. Patent Owner has not produced or pointed to any evidence to show TC1507 corn “readily available” to the public without restrictions as of the filing date of the 2004 application. On the other hand, for prior-art status determination, the relevant time is February 16, 2006, the publication date of Barbour. Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence, which Patent Owner does not challenge, to show that, by 2006, corn harvested from TC1507 plants was “commercially available following the 2003, 2004, and 2005 growing seasons” and “[s]uch corn was sold as a commodity—without any contractual restrictions” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 134). As a result, based on the current record, we find Petitioner has established sufficiently that, as of its publication date in February 2006, Barbour is prior art that would have enabled practice of the subject matter encompassed by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 20
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,901,378 - Foursquare Labs, Inc. v. Boardactive CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00918 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1–27 under the Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr obviousness ground, and claims 28–29 under the Adharapurapu (Alcatel) anticipation ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Our Institution Decision addressed the matter of the appropriate level of ordinary skill, in view of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, as follows: The parties’ descriptions of the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention do not appear to differ in any material way that would affect this Decision. However, at this stage of the proceeding, it is unclear whether it would be proper to require Patent Owner’s proposed requirement of “three years of experience working with digital advertising and geofencing.” Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Accordingly, for the purposes of this [Institution] Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the relevant level of skill in the art, because it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’620 patent and asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 16. Patent Owner’s Response endorses the determination presented in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 2. Petitioner does not address our initial determination in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Accordingly, consistent with our Institution Decision, in this Final Written Decision, we employ Petitioner’s description of the relevant level of skill in the art. C. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The Specification of the ’620 patent supports the understanding that a “consumer” is “a user or person,” per Patent Owner’s proposal (PO Resp. 11). See Ex. 1001, 8:36–38 (“The AdDrop™ may require the consumer to be one of the first few people to input an answer to a question to win the promotion.”) However, Patent Owner’s further proposed requirement — i.e., that a “consumer” be someone “to whom an advertisement may be sent” — would cloud, rather than clarify, the term’s meaning. PO Resp. 11 (emphasis added). For instance, under Patent Owner’s construction, it is not clear if “consumers” require access to the cellular network or Internet in order to be sent advertisements. Further, Patent Owner’s proposed construction would not assist in resolving any issue in this proceeding, contrary to our ambition to construe claim terms “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. Moreover, the role of the term “consumer,” in the ’620 patent’s claims, is based upon the relationship of the “consumer” to particular actions and instrumentalities, e.g., associated “media content,” “profile data,” or a “device.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 37:57, 66–67, 38:15. In view of the foregoing, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that requires a “consumer” to be a person “to whom an advertisement may be sent.” See PO Resp. 11 (emphasis added). D. Prior Art References” slip op. at 15
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, such a new argument that is introduced in a Sur- reply is improper. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide10 74 (Nov. 2019) (“While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. The Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply or surreply.”); Hulu, LLC v. SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC, IPR2021-00158, Paper 34 at 55 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2022). In addition, Patent Owner’s new “geolocation” argument is founded on attorney argument, without adequate support in record evidence, and is contradicted by the unchallenged testimony of Dr. Goldberg. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 29–66 (discussing terrestrial location technologies), 175–195 (discussing the disclosure of “geolocation” features in the Adharapurapu (Alcatel) reference).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Yet, Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s stated reasons (quoted above) for combining teachings of Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr, regarding the “registering asset data” features of limitation 1(a) (including its subparts) — reasons that are supported by the unchallenged testimony of Dr. Goldberg. See Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 196–197). Still further, Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s other reasons for combining teachings of Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr, concerning the recited “content interaction layer” and “consumer tracking layer” features of limitation 1(b) (including its subparts): , POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate Kerr’s user content interaction features into Alcatel to provide user subjective information/feedback for improving the accuracy, reducing noise, and enhancing efficiency in tailored communications. Pet. 43–44. Petitioner’s discussion of these reasons for combining the references’ teachings is supported by additional unrebutted testimony of Dr. Goldberg. Ex. 1002 ¶ 180. Having considered the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record (including the unchallenged testimony of Dr. Goldberg), we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr teach or suggest limitation 1(a) (including all subparts).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,621,620 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,621,620 - Foursquare Labs, Inc. v. Boardactive CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00919 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable: claims 13–19 were anticipated by Felt, and claims 1–23 would have been obvious over Adharapurapu and Felt.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude in its entirety. IV. PATENT OWNER’s MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1002 and 1009—the” slip op. at 84
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Accordingly, the Petition fails to establish that Felt satisfies” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Goldberg, and the reasoning to combine the references, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–23 would have been obvious over the combination of Adharapurapu and Felt (Ground 6). Petitioner has also shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Felt anticipates claims 13–19 (Ground 1), renders obvious claims 13–19 (Ground 2), and that claims 1–19 would have been obvious over Felt in view of Creemer or Scofield (Ground 4).” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 10,692,108 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,692,108 - Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00937 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were obvious over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In sum, the Petition fails to demonstrate that the asserted prior art teaches, or renders obvious, the “causing a communication” limitation, let alone it being in response to the “determination” limitation. There is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to claim 1.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:4–6. But nothing in the claim suggests that the determination is optional or that it need not ever occur. For example, the “in response to” limitation of claim 1 does not use the conjunction “if,” as was the case in Schulhauser. See 2016 WL 6277792, *3 (interpreting “triggering an alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria” such that “triggering an alarm state” only needs to be performed “if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria.”).7 In fact, the prior step (a) of claim 1 explicitly requires the determination, reciting: “(a) determining whether a predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:1–3. As properly construed, the “in response to” language modifies the recited step of “causing a communication to be sent from the remote computing device to one or more dispatcher servers” such that the step must be “in response to a determination that the predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:4–8. In other words, “causing a communication” is a required step of the method of claim 1.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art also would have had “experience in the internet advertising industry” and urges us to adopt the same formulation as we adopted in the final written decision in IPR2023-00953. Prelim. Resp. 4. We agree with Patent Owner that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had such experience. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). The difference between the parties’ proposals as to the person of ordinary skill in the art, however, is immaterial here. Thus, for purposes of deciding the Petition, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“when the content area is visible.” (citing Ex. 1018, 10:16–18)); see also Ex. 1018, 5:11–14 (“In operation S202, the system identifies whether the event occurs. When the event occurs, the system performs operation S203, otherwise, the system waits for the event to occur. In this instance, the event may include a user enter event or a scrolling event.”). Whether a scrolling event occurs, however, does not satisfy the specific language of the claim reciting “a determination that the predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Nor does the Petition explain how it might.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,741,482 - Copeland Comfort Control LP / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00131 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the Kates-711 grounds; the Board did not reach the alternative Kates-505 grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, along with at least two years of professional experience in sensors, controls, and/or wireless communications.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 44–47). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’887 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“sensed condition outside a predetermined range.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the second wherein clause replaces the word “suspended” with “that would otherwise occur is stopped.” PO Resp. 8–9 (“emphasis omitted”). This phrase is not part of claim 1. Nonetheless, adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction could potentially render the second wherein clause superfluous because the first wherein clause does not require transmission of the most recent reading to occur when the change is within the predetermined range. Consequently, the language of claim 1 does not require or suggest Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“recent reading of the indicator stored in the memory during a period of a transmission interval in response to detecting a change in the sensed condition outside a predetermined range.” Ex. 1001, 14:63–67. This limitation also requires that “during the period of the transmission interval” the transmission “is suspended in response to detecting a change in the sensed condition within the predetermined range.” Id. at 14:67–15:4. Petitioner, therefore, must show that Kates-711 discloses a transceiver configured to transmit information or suspend transmission of the information during a “period” within a “transmission interval.” For the recited “transmission interval,” Petitioner contends that Kates’s “periodic intervals of ‘periodic monitoring’ is a [1.e] ‘transmission interval,’ during which there is a [1.e] ‘transmission period’ that includes a ‘report block.’” Pet. Reply 9. We agree with Petitioner for the following reasons. Kates describes the process shown in Figure 7 as follows: FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing one embodiment of operation of the sensor unit 102 wherein periodic monitoring is provided. In FIG. 7, a power up block 701 is followed by an initialization block 702, After initialization, the sensor unit 102 enters a low-power sleep mode. If a fault occurs during the sleep mode (e.g., the tamper sensor is activated), then the process enters a wake-up block 704 followed by a transmit fault block 705. If no fault occurs during the sleep period, then when the specified sleep period has expired, the process enters a block 706 where the sensor unit 102 takes a sensor reading from the sensor(s) 201. The sensor data is subsequently sent to the monitoring computer 13 in a report block 707. After reporting, the sensor unit 102 enters a listen block 708 where the sensor unit 102 listens for a relatively short period of time for instructions from monitoring computer 708. If an instruction is received, then the sensor unit 102 performs the instructions, otherwise, the process returns to the sleep block 703. Ex. 1004, 15:50–65. Based on this description of Figure 7, we find that Kates’s report block 707 corresponds to the recited “a period of the transmission interval” because it is a period of time when “sensor data is . . . sent to the monitoring computer.” Ex. 1004, 15:61. Further, block 707 is within an interval of “periodic monitoring” i.e., the process loop shown in Figure 7 beginning at block 703 and comprising steps 703, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 and back to block 703. See also Ex. 1052 ¶ 22 (Dr. Neikirk testifying “each of [Kates’s] periodic intervals during which the ‘periodic monitoring’ process occurs is a ‘transmission interval’ . . . and the report block’ that occurs within this process is a transmission period.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“2. Analysis Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Kates-711’s teachings not only render obvious but also disclose the ‘memory’ elements ([1.d]-[1.e], [5]), Hitt provides explicit teachings of a memory storing information as claimed.” Pet. 42. Petitioner further contends that Hitt’s memory 155 “stores instructions for execution by processor 156 and also stores periodically sampled sensor data for retrieval by the processor for processing and/or transmission.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 67– 68). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify Kates-711’s sensor units with Hitt’s teachings of ‘memory’ to achieve the beneficial and predictable result of utilizing a memory to securely store sensor readings.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been further motivated to modify Kates-711 “by storing these sensor values in memory as taught by Hitt to improve reliability” in light of Hitt’s teaching that “storage of sensor values in memory . . . ensur[es] that the values are available for calculations and not unintentionally lost or erased, e.g., due to power outages or interruptions.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kates-711 “discloses that its controller may be a ‘conventional programmable microcontroller’; such microcontrollers were well-understood to commonly use a memory to, e.g., track data variables used for control applications.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117). We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Kates-711 with the teachings of Hitt and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 7,746,887 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,746,887 - Copeland Comfort Control LP / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00626 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the Kates-711 grounds; the alternative Kates-505 grounds were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, in order to resolve the present controversy, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “suspended”, as used in the challenged claims, encompasses both where a transmission that would otherwise occur is suspended by an action such as overriding a flag and where a transmission is not made because there is no change in an indicator or a change does not exceed a limit. Upon review the parties’ respective contentions, we determine that no other express constructions of any other claim term is required for this decision. See 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 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“2. Analysis Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Kates-711’s teachings not only render obvious but also disclose the ‘memory’ elements ([1.d]-[1.e], [5]), Hitt provides explicit teachings of a memory storing information as claimed.” Pet. 42. Petitioner further contends that Hitt’s memory 155 “stores instructions for execution by processor 156 and also stores periodically sampled sensor data for retrieval by the processor for processing and/or transmission.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 67– 68). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify Kates-711’s sensor units with Hitt’s teachings of ‘memory’ to achieve the beneficial and predictable result of utilizing a memory to securely store sensor readings.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been further motivated to modify Kates-711 “by storing these sensor values in memory as taught by Hitt to improve reliability” in light of Hitt’s teaching that “storage of sensor values in memory . . . ensur[es] that the values are available for calculations and not unintentionally lost or erased, e.g., due to power outages or interruptions.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kates-711 “discloses that its controller may be a ‘conventional programmable microcontroller’; such microcontrollers were well-understood to commonly use a memory to, e.g., track data variables used for control applications.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117). We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Kates-711 with the teachings of Hitt and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117.” slip op. at 37
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION12 Weighing the competing evidence and testimony, we determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 of the ’887 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 7,746,887 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,746,887 - Copeland Comfort Control LP v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00624 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–16, and 20–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 7–11, and 20–21 over McFarland, and claims 13–16 over McFarland and Kates-089.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Claim 1 recites “a multi-sensor package configured to detect a plurality of variables and generate sensor data for each detected variable.” Ex. 1001, 10:46–48. Both parties agree that a “multi-sensor package” is a single packaged device with multiple sensors, not a group of individual sensors. See PO Resp. 6; Pet. Reply 2. Claim 1 does not recite a multi-sensor package with “multiple operational sensors.” Patent Owner does not explain the difference between operational sensors and sensors “configured” as recited in claim 1 or why claim 1 should be construed as requiring an “operational” limitation that does not appear in the claim. Consequently, a requirement that the sensors comprising the package be “operational” is neither required by claim 1 nor suggested by the language of claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, along with at least two years of professional experience in sensors, controls, and/or wireless communications.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46–49). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’282 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“McFarland discloses an exemplary sensor 209 that “is configured as any of a temperature sensor, humidity sensor, fire sensor, pressure sensor, smoke sensor, occupancy sensor, air quality sensor, gas sensor, O2, CO2, or CO sensor, accelerometer, velocity sensor, [or] combinations thereof” and “may be . . . micro-mechanical sensors . . . or larger sensors for sensing any condition or parameter.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 43 (emphasis added). Patent Owner submits that paragraph 43 of McFarland describes “a device . . . that sense[s] conditions, parameters and/or events such as an environmental condition in a building.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis added). Based on the foregoing, we find that McFarland teaches “a multi-sensor package configured to detect a plurality of variables.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 72 (“sensor 209 may be configured to detect multiple different variables including temperature, humidity, and other variables”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 43. McFarland further discloses “sensor 209 generates information or data related to the sensed or monitored condition” and “output as one or more signals that may be read by the processor 214.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 43. McFarland further discloses that “information may be generated in response to a physical stimulus such as light, sound, pressure, heat, magnetism, motion, and/or acceleration” that “may be detected as a result of sensing or monitoring the conditions or parameters.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 44 (“A signal generated by the sensor 209 may be an indicator of the sensed condition.”). McFarland also discloses that “processor 214 implements a control process for the device 207” that “may be implemented based on a signal that is read from and/or provided by the sensor 209, such as a measured value of a parameter, an indicator of a sensed condition and/or status of an event.” Id. ¶ 39. Thus, we find McFarland teaches that sensor 209 “generate[s] sensor data for each detected variable.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 74 (“For each condition that it monitors, the sensor generates and outputs sensor data for each measured variable in the form of ‘a measured variable’ or ‘indicator.’” (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 39, 45, 47)). For the foregoing reasons and after reviewing Petitioner’s evidence in light of Patent Owner’s contentions, we find that McFarland teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Motivation to Combine/Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that McFarland discloses that a wireless automation device wakes up and enters a standby or sleep mode in response to a report instruction. Pet. 46. Petitioner acknowledges that McFarland “does not explicitly state that the ‘report instruction’ includes a ‘wake-up command’ or describe how the device is instructed to return to a ‘sleep’ mode between reporting intervals.” Id. (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶8, 18, 48, 62). Petitioner next contends that Kates-089 “teaches that such a ‘report instruction’ comprises a ‘wake-up command,’ and that a controller issues a ‘standby mode’ instruction (i.e., a ‘power down command’).” Id. (citing Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 78, 82, 86). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify McFarland with” the teachings of Kates-089 “to advantageously facilitate reporting data both periodically and in response to commands while conserving power via ‘wake-up’ and ‘standby’ (i.e., power-down) commands.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 147; Ex. 1027 ¶ 62; Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 40, 74–75, 82, 86); id. at 47 (arguing that an ordinarily skilled artisan in light of Kates-089 “would have been motivated to modify McFarland’s ‘report’ instruction to include a wake-up command” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 149)) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine McFarland and Kates-089 “to save power consumed during, e.g., the 99.9% of the polling interval when the device may otherwise be unnecessarily turned on.” Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 150). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success “applying Kates-089’s wake-up and power-down command teachings to McFarland’s wireless automation device” because “McFarland already teaches that the wireless automation device wakes up and powers down in response to certain commands[] and such commands were well understood.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 151; Ex. 1005 ¶ 32; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 8, 18, 48, 62; Ex. 1032, 12:48–54; Ex. 1033, 12:16– 22) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not address motivation to combine or reasonable expectation of success for claim 13. See PO Resp. 26–35. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,224,282 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,224,282 - New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00778 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim: Clark and Mills each failed to disclose required limitations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition 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); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies New Balance’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’749 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our patentability evaluations below.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00876 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 6 as obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey, and claim 5 as obvious over those references and ordinary skill.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1065 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s October, 27, 2023, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). Because it was not filed until March 29, 2024, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration. In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 1–2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s October 27, 2023, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1065).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We find that both references are analogous art to the ’981 patent, as there is ample supporting evidence in the record, including that to which the Reply cites (citations identified in the immediately preceding paragraph). Indeed, Patent Owner does not dispute the merits of either argument. PO Sur-Reply 27–28. Rather, Patent Owner, argues that we “should not now permit Petitioner to rewrite its clearly-deficient Petition.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s Reply does not re-write its Petition. What Petitioner’s Reply does, in response to Patent Owner’s arguments, is precisely what Sanofi-Aventis contemplates as being proper in a reply brief. Indeed, in ruling against the petitioner in Sanofi-Aventis, the Federal Circuit specifically noted that the petitioner could have used its reply brief “to explain how [the prior art reference] is analogous to the [challenged] patent” but did not do so. 66 F.4th at 1379–1380. Here, in contrast, Petitioner used its Reply brief to explain how Linnarsson and McCloskey are analogous to the ’981 patent. Petitioner’s explanation in its Reply brief was both proper and persuasive.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence. McCloskey names four authors, all four of whom are named inventors of US 2007/0020640 A1, published Jan. 25, 2007 (“McCloskey ’640”). Ex. 1004, 1, Ex. 2001, code (76). Patent Owner concedes that McCloskey and McCloskey ’640 involve the same subject matter, having argued that the consideration of McCloskey ’640 supported discretionary denial of the Petition based on McCloskey. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 22 (“Petitioner’s secondary reference, an article by McCloskey, is at best cumulative of the far more detailed McCloskey ’640, which was raised by the Office and substantively discussed as the basis for a potential rejection using its asserted disclosure of a polynucleotide-specific tag—the same purported teaching for which Petitioner relies on McCloskey here.”). Notably, McCloskey ’640 was published on January 25, 2007. Ex. 2001, code (43). That is just days before McCloskey was received by BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS on January 31, 2007. See EX. 1004, 1 (“Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007”). In other words, it appears that the authors sought to have their research published in a scientific journal promptly after the subject matter of their research had been published by the Office. Further, the existence of McCloskey and its publication year of 2007 is confirmed by other sources in the record. See Ex. 1029, code (56) (United States Patent identifying as a cited reference: “McCloskey, et al. Encoding Pcr products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem Genet. Dec. 2007;45(11-12):761-7. Epub Oct. 23, 2007.”); Ex. 1053, code (56) (same); Ex. 1060 (article’s bibliography citing “McCloskey ML, Stöger R, Hansen RS, Laird CD. Encoding PCR products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem. Genet 2007;45:761–767. [PubMed: 17955361]”). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied with respect to” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The Petition states that “Petitioner does not believe that any terms require explicit construction in view of the prior art being presented.” Pet. 36. Despite this stated position, Petitioner proposed constructions for “multiplex-identifier (MID)” and “providing a sample.” Id. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, stated that it “agrees that at this time, solely for purposes of an institution decision on the Petition, no terms require explicit construction.” Prelim. Resp. 45. In instituting the IPR, we found no need to provide an express construction of any claim term. Inst. Dec. 6. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner repeats that it “does not believe any term needs construction,” but nonetheless “applies the Petition’s definitions for ‘MID’ and ‘sample.’” PO Resp. 19. The Petition defines MID as “‘a tag or combination of tags associated with a polynucleotide whose identity (e.g., the tag DNA sequence) can be used to differentiate polynucleotides in a sample.’” Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:33–38). The Petition defines sample as “‘a quantity of material from a biological, environmental medical, or patient source in which detection, measurement, or labeling of target nucleic acids is sought.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:7– 10). We apply these same definitions in our analysis.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 10,155,981 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,155,981
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.