• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01343 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 13–15, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable because Bose and White, alone or in the asserted combinations, failed to teach claimed workload comparisons or workload monitoring.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded and find for the reasons given that Petitioner fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that White teaches or suggests “receiving a bus workload for a communication bus and a first processing element workload for a first processing element based on an integrated circuit reaching a limit.” Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[t]he workload is a function of the demands imposed by, e.g., applications running on the system, and may or may not be subject to direct control, whereas the conditions under which that workload is processed are controlled directly.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 66. We agree with Dr. Brogioli and find that White’s frequency and voltage monitoring and adjustments do not result in the power management logic receiving the bus workload as recited in claim element 4[a]. Id. ¶¶ 64–66. We find the testimony of Mr. Wyatt on this issue unconvincing. Wyatt Decl. ¶ 103. In support of his opinion that “monitoring the operating voltages and frequencies of the logic core 120A and common logic bridge 110 is monitoring the workload of those components,” he states: “It was well understood that operating frequency and voltage of a component reflect the activity and use, or workload, of that component.” Id. However, he does not provide any evidentiary support for this statement. We, therefore, give it little weight. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (Nov. 2019)5 (“Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.”) (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “response. Paper 9. At the institution stage, therefore, Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 12–13. In its Response, Patent Owner states that it “uses this definition” in its analysis. PO Resp. 15 (citing Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25). In view of the foregoing, for this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’494 patent and the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Mr. Wyatt. See Wyatt Decl. ¶ 21.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionGranted

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner proposes a construction for the term “workload.” PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in the ’494 patent, the term ‘workload’ means ‘an amount of activity over a quantum or period of time.’” Id. at 15. Dr. Brogioli’s testimony supports this construction, as does Mr. Wyatt’s. Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 36–38; Wyatt Dep. 34:14–36:9. The ’494 patent also supports this construction. Ex. 1001, 8:20–22, 9:60–63. Petitioner does not dispute this proposed construction in its Reply. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “workload.”” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Nowhere does Petitioner or its expert point to an explicit disclosure in Bose of making a comparison of the claimed “bus workload and a bus workload threshold.” Instead, Petitioner relies on its expert’s opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill might have known, without any additional supporting evidence. See, e.g., Pet. 26 (“[A person of ordinary skill] would have understood global PMCU compares a workload threshold as exemplified by the predicted power and performance of each power mode and the monitored workload to select and adjust the power mode of a component” (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 54–55)). This opinion is not supported by the record. The only disclosure of a comparison in Bose that we have been shown is the comparison of PowerTotal to PowerMax in step 303 of Figure 3, which Petitioner does not rely on to meet the “comparison” limitation in the claim. Hearing Tr. 17:16–20. Also without proper support is Petitioner’s assertion that “a [person of ordinary skill] would have understood that in Bose, selecting or adjusting power mode for a component entails comparing a workload threshold, such as predicted power and performance associated with each power mode with real time statistics, such as the monitored workload of a component.” Pet. 26 (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 55–56). We determine that for the reasons given, Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed comparison element 1[g] of claim 1 is taught or suggested by Bose. We find, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that claim 1 is anticipated by Bose, nor has Petitioner demonstrated that to a person of ordinary skill, claim 1 would have been obvious in light of Bose.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,898,494 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,898,494
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01333 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Sutardja, Sutardja and Rychlik, or Sutardja and Carmack; the Board did not reach the Mathieson-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We decline to “throw out” Dr. Horst’s testimony for several reasons. First and foremost, Patent Owner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude his testimony, or even filed an objection. Hearing Tr. 46:19–47:1. Thus, the issue of whether the testimony should be excluded is not properly before us. Further, Petitioner asserts that “[t]his distinction is irrelevant.” Pet. Reply 2. We agree. Patent Owner has not pointed to any opinion by Dr. Horst that turns on the alleged “flaw” in the definition of the person of ordinary skill. Id. at 46:19–48:3. Finally, there is no prejudice. Patent Owner’s expert used the definition proposed by Patent Owner in his analysis. See Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25. Nor could Patent Owner show us with specificity any place in the record where resolving this dispute would make a difference in this case. Hearing Tr. 46:3–47:3. For the reasons given, we do not see the need to modify our definition of a person of ordinary skill or to exclude or give little weight to Dr. Horst’s opinions.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionGranted

    “operating system.” PO Resp. 12–13. Relying on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Patent Owner contends that “[a]n ‘operating system’ is, and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be, ‘The software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, central processing unit (CPU) time, disk space, and peripheral devices.’” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2007, 378). Dr. Brogioli’s testimony generally supports this construction, as does Dr. Horst’s. See Brogioli Dep. 8:17–22; Horst Dep. 32:3–8. Petitioner responds that the term “should be understood in accordance with its plain meaning,” and therefore does not require construction, but does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet. Reply 2. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “operating system.” However, we do not see this construction as dispositive of the central issue of whether the operating system in Sutardja controls the transition of the cores. See Section II.D.1, infra. slip op. at 16

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

    “PMS module do not ‘control’ the core switching module or the hardware on which it runs. Instead, the kernel and the PMS module only make system calls to the core switching module.” PO Resp. 27. We disagree that this is not sufficient control to meet this claim limitation. As Dr. Horst’s testimony (quoted supra) explains, the PMS module and kernel modules “trigger a transition” by generating a call to the hypervisor module or a core switching module. Horst Decl. ¶ 124. Patent Owner’s argument fails because it assumes the claims require direct control, when the claims recite no such restriction (nor have we been asked by either party to construe the claims as such).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,049,080 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,049,080
• Valeo SE / Valeo Schalter Und Sensoren GmbH v. Foras Technologies Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00823 · APJ Carl W Whitehead Jr · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 13–22 over Bigbee and Nguyen, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness, and granted Valeo’s motion to join IPR2023-01373.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Having considered the arguments presented in the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’958 patent is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Bigbee and Nguyen. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–8 and 13–22) on all grounds set forth in the Petition. Our determinations at this stage of the proceeding are based on the evidentiary record currently before us. This decision to institute trial is not a final decision as to the patentability of any claim for which we have instituted an inter partes review. See TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that “there is a significant difference between a Petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood of” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts: A person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter of the ’958 patent would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience with computer architecture design. Additional education in the field could be substituted for industry experience, and vice versa. See Prelim. Resp. 3. The parties’ positions appear to be more or less the same. Based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision, as it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. We note that our Decision would be the same under either party’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 9

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

    “At this stage of the proceeding, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. 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))). After reviewing the parties’ evidence and contentions, we do not observe a dispute over the meaning of these terms that is necessary to resolve at this stage. Accordingly, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on our review and consideration of the current record, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Bigbee and Nguyen teaches the recited elements of limitation 19a for purposes of institution and has provided reasons sufficiently supported by factual underpinnings to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success. Nguyen discloses, “[t]he present invention addresses mechanisms for combining recoverable and non-recoverable error handling mechanisms efficiently in FRC-enabled processors.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 9. Subsequently, Nguyen distinguishes recoverable from non-recoverable errors by treating non-recoverable errors differently from recoverable errors. Nguyen discloses, “If an error reaches error detector 140 from either core 120, recovery module 150 is activated to implement a recovery routine. Recovery can be implemented with relatively low latency by hardware, software, firmware or some combination of these.” Id. ¶ 22, Fig. 1. “However, an FRC error will be triggered if the corrupted data from one execution core and an uncorrupted version of the data from the other execution are allowed to reach FRC checker 130 before recovery module 150 is activated.” Id. Nguyen recognizes, “[s]ince FRC errors are not recoverable, reset module 160 resets the system, if FRC checker 130 signals an FRC error before the underlying parity/ECC error is detected.” Id. Nguyen further recognizes that, “[n]ot all FRC-errors are traceable to underlying parity/ECC or other correctible soft errors. For those that are, it is faster for error detector 140 to address the under lying soft error than for FRC-checker to address the FRC error that results when the corrupted data reaches FRC boundary 104.” Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). In this instance instead of the FRC-error being processed by the FRC checker 130 and the Reset module 160, the FRC error is directed to the Error detector 140 and eventually recovery module 150. See id. at Fig. 1. Nguyen also discloses, “the recovery routine triggered by error detector 140 provides greater system availability than the reset routine triggered by FRC checker 130” and “[e]xpanding the FRC boundary thus increases both the amount of logic that is duplicated for execution cores 120 and the flight time, during which detectable errors may be identified.” Id. ¶ 30, Fig 1; see Pet. 37. Nguyen further discloses, “[t]he former increases FRC protection, albeit through a reset mechanism” as shown in Figure 1, elements FRC Checker 130 and Reset Module 160. Ex. 1006 ¶ 30. “The latter increases the likelihood that errors identifiable through parity, ECC [error correction code] or similar core-specific protections are handled through recovery rather than reset” as shown in Figure 1, elements Error Detector, 140 and Recovery Module 150. Id. Additionally, Nguyen’s Figure 7, as discussed above, “is a block” slip op. at 33

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,502,958
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Amazon.Com, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00384 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–12 are unpatentable under § 103 over Meyer, Zeff, Edlund, and Fisher; the Board did not reach the alternative ground adding Tittel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1 Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC, Inc. filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2023-00384, which were granted. Accordingly, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC have been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding.” slip op. at 1

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

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction for “automatically with the BT computer system.” Under Phillips, the starting point for the analysis is the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Claim 9 recites “automatically with the BT computer system” and does not otherwise recite or require the acts recited in the claims that follow, such as “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a website . . .” to be performed in whole or part by the BT computer system. Accordingly, based on the record evidence, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “automatically with the BT computer system.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not further explicitly construe “automatically with the BT computer system” to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “provide support for its construction, we do not agree that the proposed construction for “profile information” “derives directly from the specification of the ’615 Patent.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction has a broader in scope than the ’615 Patent Specification disclosures cited by Patent Owner as support. Without explanation, Patent Owner’s proposed property” and “demographic information about a visitor to a media property” (PO Resp. 7–8) (emphasis added), while the cited ’615 Patent Specification discloses that the “visitor’s profile “could be the observed behavior of the visitor on the media property, demographic information collected on the media property.” Ex. 1001, 3:37–44 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:16–21, 4:64–67. In other words, without explanation, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information” encompasses the observed behavior, in general, of a media property visitor and the demographic information, in general, about a media property visitor, and is therefore broader than the cited ’615 Patent Specification, which more narrowly discloses the visitor’s observed behavior on the media property and the visitor’s demographic information collected on the media property. Patent Owner does not direct us to disclosure in the ’615 Patent Specification to support the full scope of Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information.” In sum, based on the record evidence, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information,” because the broad scope of the proposed construction is not supported by Patent Owner’s citations to the ’615 Patent Specification disclosure. Consistent with the cited ’615 Patent Specification disclosures, we instead construe “profile information” as “the observed behavior of the visitor on the media property, demographic information collected on the media property, or both.”8” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “system.” Under Phillips, the starting point for the analysis is the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The language of claim 9 does not include limitations precluding the later occurring transfer of any profile information as a result of tagging the first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website. See Ex. 1001, 14:7–40. We also agree with Petitioner’s arguments that the language of claim 9, by use of the transitional phrase “comprising,” does not preclude the occurrence of “transferring to the third party computer system any profile information” after the step of “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website, which occurs “at a first time.” See id. We also do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the ’615 Patent Specification supports its construction. Although Patent Owner directs attention to the ’615 Patent Specification disclosures that the BT computer company stores a visitor’s collected profile information and does not transfer it to the second media property, but asks the second media property to tag the visitor or arrange for a tag to be placed (see PO Resp. 10; Ex. 1001, 9:47–54), and further discloses that the BT company has no economic incentive to transfer profile information to the second media property (see PO Resp. 11; Ex. 1001, 9:54–65), these disclosures do not provide sufficient support for Patent Owner’s requirement that “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website” must not result in transfer of visitor profile information to the third party computer system. See PO Resp. 10–11.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,830,615 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,830,615
• Box, Inc. / Dropbox, Inc. v. Topia Technology, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2023 · IPR2023-00432 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–16 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. For the reasons set forth below, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–16 of the ’823 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We do not find that the Petition presents sufficient reasoning to support why a person of skill in the art would modify Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm in view of Shappell’s and Rao’s teachings. Shappell and Rao simply teach that metadata is sent first and content or raw data is sent second. Petitioner contends that because the metadata is known to usually contain less data than a file and the updated version is newer, Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm should be reconfigured to assign greater priority to the metadata and lower priority to the files. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. Petitioner asserts that Sigurdsson motivates the modification because of the “natural harmony” of Sigurdsson’s algorithm to prioritizing metadata. Pet. 23; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. There is no explanation provided in the Petition, however, as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would opt to modify Sigurdsson to assign and compare priorities by reconfiguring the priority algorithm of Sigurdsson when there is the simpler way of using software to simply send metadata first and content second as taught in Shappell/Rao. Absent explanation in the Petition as to why one of skill in the art would opt to reconfigure Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm to assign and compare priorities rather than employing the simpler method taught in Shappell/Rao of just sending metadata first, the Petition lacks rational underpinning.” slip op. at 22

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “We have reviewed the motions and the documents at issue and have considered the explanations of the confidential nature of the materials for which sealing is sought. We find there is good cause and therefore we grant the motions to seal and the associated request to enter the protective order.” slip op. at 30

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,754,823
• Box, Inc. / Dropbox, Inc. v. Topia Technology, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2023 · IPR2023-00431 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on both §103 grounds because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims required priority assignment and comparison.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. For the reasons set forth below, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–16 of the ’787 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “bachelor’s degree in computer science (or a similar degree) with two years of work experience in developing software, including at least some experience with storage, synchronization, and human-computer interaction technologies.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 17, 21). Patent Owner does not 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’787 patent claims priority, through a continuation application, to a provisional application filed before March 16, 2013, and neither party has argued that the provisions of the AIA apply at this time, we apply the pre-AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability. See Ex. 1007, codes (60), (63). 3 U.S. Publication No. 2007/0174246 A1, published July 26, 2007 (Ex. 1016). 4 U.S. Publication No. 2005/0091289 A1, published April 28, 2005 (Ex. 1020). 5 U.S. Publication No. 2006/0190506 A1, published April 24, 2006 (Ex. 1019). 6 U.S. Patent No. 7,035,847 B2, filed March 15, 2002 (Ex. 1025). 7 U.S. Publication No. 2005/0120082 A1, published June 2, 2005 (Ex. 1026). proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this juncture, we determine that the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for an ordinarily skilled artisan are consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and in the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. Claim Construction Neither party requests that we expressly construe any claim term. Pet. 6; see generally, Prelim. Resp. At this juncture, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any claim term 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 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We do not find that the Petition presents sufficient reasoning to support why a person of skill in the art would modify Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm in view of Shappell’s and Rao’s teachings. Shappell and Rao simply teach that metadata is sent first and content or raw data is sent second. Petitioner contends that because the metadata is known to usually contain less data than a file and the updated version is newer, Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm should be reconfigured to assign greater priority to the metadata and lower priority to the files. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. Petitioner asserts that Sigurdsson motivates the modification because of the “natural harmony” of Sigurdsson’s algorithm to prioritizing metadata. Pet. 23; Ex. 1028 ¶ 177. There is no explanation provided in the Petition, however, as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would opt to modify Sigurdsson to assign and compare priorities by reconfiguring the priority algorithm of Sigurdsson when there is the simpler way of using software to simply send metadata first and content second as taught in Shappell/Rao. Absent explanation in the Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm to assign and compare priorities rather than employing the simpler method taught in Shappell/Rao of just sending metadata first, the Petition lacks rational underpinning.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,642,787
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01601 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over both listed combinations; the contingent motion to amend is granted, replacing them with substitute claims 3 and 4.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with a qualification. We stated we would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner. Institution Dec. 19. We reasoned that our review of the ’199 patent and the cited prior art did not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’199 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. at 19– 20. However, we observed that the arguments presented by the parties did not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and therefore, we concluded that our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 20.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “device associated with a driver at all.” PO Resp. 39 (citing Valenti III Decl. ¶ 94). Patent Owner continues, “Petitioner’s expert acknowledges that Lalancette does not disclose the use of a mobile communication device associated with the driver.” Id. (citing Williams Dep. 128:14–129:25, 132:1–8). This is a misrepresentation of Mr. Williams’s testimony. He was not asked whether Lalancette “discloses” a mobile communication device; he was asked to agree whether Lalancette “identi[fies] the mobile computer as a mobile communication device.” Williams Dep 129:10–13. He explained his response later in his testimony: “In the passage where [Lalancette] references mobile computer, it doesn’t have a specific form factor discussion such as referencing Smartphones.” Id. at 132:5–8. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that this limitation is not met by Lalancette and we do not find the testimony of its expert, Dr. Valenti, credible or helpful. See Valenti III Decl. ¶¶ 94 (“Lalancette does not disclose a mobile device associated with a driver at all.”). As Petitioner points out, the argument supported by Dr. Valenti is an “attempt to improperly narrow the definition of a mobile device to only mean a smartphone of the driver.” Pet. Reply 24. We find that this argument and the supporting expert testimony are contradicted by the ’199 patent specification. See id, at 24–25 (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:10–11, defining mobile communication device broadly). We, therefore, find that the mobile computer disclosed in Lalancette meets the requirement of this claim limitation for a “mobile communication device associated with the driver.” We find for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates that Lalancette and Kemler meet limitation 1E.” slip op. at 45

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We declined to adopt this implicit construction (and the related construction “actively generate”). Institution Dec. 23. The claims themselves do not require the controller to “actively formulate” a new indicator for the same rider requesting a subsequent trip for that second trip, or that “a new signal be actively formulated each time a ride is dispatched,” as Patent Owner’s analysis asserts. See infra. Nor is it clear how this construction is supported by the ’199 patent specification. The ’199 patent describes the controller as “communicatively coupled to the transceiver.” Ex. 1001, 2:10–11. Further, “[t]he controller is adapted to generate a first signal to be transmitted by the transceiver to a mobile communication device.” Id. at 2:12–14. Elsewhere in the patent, “controller” is defined as “any type of computing device, computational circuit, or any type of processor or processing circuit capable of executing a series of instructions that are stored in a memory associated with a with the controller.” Id. at 3:6–10. The operation of the controller is also described as follows: “The controller 110 may generate a first signal (also referred to herein as a ‘notification signal’) that is transmitted via the transceiver 120 to the mobile communication device 150 associated with the driver D.” Id. at 5:14–17. Still further, “[t]he controller 110 generates four different notification signals, NOTIFICATION-A, NOTIFICATION-B, NOTIFICATION-C, and NOTIFICATION-D, to be transmitted by the transceiver 120 to a first DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150A, a second DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150B, a third DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150C, and a fourth DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150D, respectively.” Id. at 6:39–46. And further, “[i]n other embodiments, wherein the vehicle identification system 11 is utilized, an indicatory signal to the rider's mobile communication device may be generated by the controller 110.” Id. at 7:4–7. In none of these descriptions of the controller’s operation is there” slip op. at 15

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

    “We find that the Petition and supporting expert testimony sufficiently demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Kemler and Kalanick with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 21–25. In addition to the reasons given supra, Petitioner explains that Kalanick’s “on-demand service system can also use location information from the driver’s device and/or transport information . . . to automatically determine the driver’s state or state of the transport service.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 29, 35). Petitioner explains that in Kalanick, “[w]hen a service application on the driver’s device determines that the transport service is to change state, such as to ‘arriving now,’ based on a determination that the driver is within a predetermined distance, the service application can trigger the indication device to output the user’s specific color.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 37). Thus, Kalanick’s system can “control the indication device to output the user’s color or other unique distinctive indicator based on the transport state.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 38). Petitioner explains that Kemler describes a central dispatching system in which one or more server computing devices of the centralized dispatching system may select a vehicle to be dispatched based upon the location of the client computing device. Id, (citing Ex. 1008, 10:3–33). Thus, Petitioner explains that Kemler, like Kalanick, “discloses ride-matching based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. Petitioner demonstrates that “a [person of ordinary skill] would find it obvious to modify Kalanick’s vehicle identification system in view of Kemler, at least because both systems disclose substantially similar ride-matching techniques based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. at 23–24. Petitioner also explains that a person of ordinary skill would “anticipate success of such a modification.” Id. at 24. Petitioner explains that “the controller in Kalanick is already in communication with the car and could easily send a signal to activate the display with the unique code.” Id. (citing Williams I Decl. ¶ 121). Petitioner recognizes that although both Kalanick and Kemler “focus” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,559,199 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,559,199
• Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00862 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing

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

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,484,510
• Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC D/B/A On Semiconductor v. Power Integrations, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2018 · IPR2016-01589 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–19 are unpatentable: claims 14–16 as obvious and claims 17–18 as anticipated and obvious, and claim 19 as obvious; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Kelley, testified “Stone is silent on its implementation, so it doesn’t actually tell you any of this is being done with current or any circuit structure.” Ex. 1030, Kelley Tr. 68:3–6. We agree. We determine that Stone studies the effect of modulating sequences on the resultant spectral power density of the square edged PWM waveform. Ex. 1020, 2, Figs 1–2. Stone’s disclosure of storing the modulation sequence for the frequency hopping spread spectrum in EPROM is not limited to any particular circuit implementation. Petitioner cites Dobkin as disclosing the relevant implementation— i.e., an implementation that reduces switching noise in a switched power regulator by generating a time varying secondary current to charge a capacitor that causes the output of VCO to vary the switching frequency of the regulator. Ex. 1004, 2:53–3:4. Dobkin varies the switching frequency by a constant amount, e.g., by 50 kHz between 75 kHz and 125 kHz, thereby spreading the noise over a broader spectrum. Id. Stone examines the effect of various switching frequency modulations. Referring to Patent Owner’s TNY256 device, Dr. Kelley testified, “you jitter somewhere around that baseline, but not very far” and “I think the prior reference Stone suggests varying the frequency very, very widely. And then if you read further on, it sort of confirms what I said about the practical difficulties in doing such an implementation.” Id. at 66:16–18, 67:21–68:3. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Holberg, agrees with Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Kelley, that Stone identifies potential problems of using large amounts of jitter and asserts that Stone provides a reason for a person of ordinary skill to select the low jitter embodiment of Stone. Ex. 1029, Holberg Suppl. Decl. ¶ 20 (citing (Ex. 1020, 4). Dr. Holberg further testified that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt the magnitude of Dobkin’s primary and secondary current sources to implement Stone’s example of a small range of jitter. Ex. 1029, Suppl. Holberg Decl. ¶ 21. In view of the testimony of both Dr. Kelley and Dr. Holberg, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Stone to jitter by a small amount the switching frequency in a power converter as configured by Dobkin, where the switching frequency is varied by changing a secondary current supplied to a circuit that drives a VCO by an amount less than the primary current.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner responds that prior litigation concerned only claim 1 of the ’876 Patent, and Patent Owner has failed to show a nexus between the secondary considerations and the merits of the subject matter recited in claim 14. Pet. Reply 16–17. Petitioner argues that “any presumption of a nexus in the IPR is overcome by the fact that PO previously attributed the same evidence of secondary considerations to features of Claim 1 that are not present in Claims 14 or 17.” Id. at 16. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the “digital jitter” feature recited in claim 1 is not recited in claims 14 and 17. Id. at 17. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner’s Vice President of marketing, David Mathews, and Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Kelley, both agreed that the counter and the digital to analog converter in claim 1 that are not recited in claim 14 make claim 1 digital. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1031, Transcript of Deposition of David Matthews (“Matthews Tr.”) 11:7–12:9; Ex. 1030, Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Arthur Kelley (“Kelley Tr.”) 59:20–60:16, 62:15–23). Petitioner further notes that, although Mr. Matthews stated he had no knowledge of patent matters and could not speak to the patent claims (Hrg.. Tr. 43:21–45:24), Dr. Kelley acknowledged that claims 1 and 14 are distinguished from each other because claim 1 recites a counter and a digital to analog converter that are not recited features of claim 14 (Pet. Reply 18). Thus, the very features Patent Owner relies upon to demonstrate non-obviousness of the invention recited in claim 1 are not features of the claims that are the subject of the challenges in this proceeding. In view of the above, we agree that the evidence is insufficient to show a nexus between the claimed subject matter and purported secondary or objective considerations as to claims 14–16. In consideration of the above, we are persuaded that there is insufficient persuasive evidence of objective considerations of non-obviousness for claim 14 and dependent claims 15 and 16. Having determined that Petitioner has demonstrated all the limitations of claims 14– 16 are taught in the prior art and that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references as discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Dobkin and Stone and that claim 15 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Dobkin, Stone and Manlove.” slip op. at 15

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

    “The dispositive question is “whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer” that a reference teaches or discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991). A reference can anticipate a claim even if it “d[oes] not expressly spell out” all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would “at once envisage” the claimed arrangement or combination. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962), Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (noting that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom”). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments concerning Habetler. A conventional implementation of a triangle wave generator uses known VCO circuitry that responds to a voltage control signal—Petitioner notes that Danstrom, discussed in the Petition, discloses such an oscillator where internal charging current, and thereby the slope of the triangle wave, is controlled by an input voltage. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1011, 3:38–55, fig. 2). Patent Owner points out that voltage summing circuits are well-known. PO Resp. 16–17. But the notation in Habetler is not a standard circuit diagram with a junction or node, where the sum of the incoming and outgoing currents are equal. Instead, Habetler’s description of the implementation in Figure 4 explicitly discloses summing voltages using the same notation in Figure 4 that Habetler uses in Figure 5. In view of Habetler’s explicit disclosure and use of identical notation in Figures 4 and 5, we agree that in Figure 5 Habetler illustrates a summing block, and that a person of ordinary skill could reasonably infer the use of a well-known voltage summing amplifier to implement this function to supply a control voltage to Habetler’s triangle wave generator. Thus, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown Habetler discloses all the limitations of method claim 17. Claim 18 recites the further limitation of clocking a counter with the output of the oscillator. Figure 5 of Habetler, as shown in Petitioner’s annotations, includes a triangle generator and a peak detector used to clock a counter. Thus, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that Habetler discloses the further limitation recited in claim 18. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Habetler.” slip op. at 20

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

    “CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In our Decision to Institute, we construed the term “cycling one or more secondary current [voltage] sources” to mean the application of secondary current [voltage] sources to generate a time-varying secondary 2 U.S. Pat. No. 5,929,620, issued Jul. 27, 1999 (Ex. 1004). 3 D.A. Stone, B. Chambers, D. Howe, Easing EMC problems in switched mode power converters by random modulation of the PWM carrier frequency, IEEE 1996 (Ex. 1020). 4U.S. Patent No. 5,699,024, issued Dec. 16, 1997 (Ex. 1016). 5 Thomas Habetler, Acoustic Noise Reduction in sinusoidal PWM Drives Using a Randomly Modulated Carrier, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 6, No. 3, July 1991 (Ex. 1019). 6 European Patent Application EP0321794A2, filed Dec. 8, 1988 (Ex. 1006). current [voltage] in a manner that repeats over time. Dec. to Inst. 17. As neither party disputes this claim construction, we apply the same construction in this Decision. No other terms require construction.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 6,249,876 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,249,876
• LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Delaware Display Group LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2016 · IPR2015-00506 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable because Shinohara anticipates them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Following institution, LG Electronics, Inc. filed timely a Petition and Motion for Joinder in Case IPR2015-01666, challenging the same claims of the ’973 patent on the same ground as that on which we instituted review in this proceeding, plus one additional ground. See Paper 24, 2. LG Electronics, Inc. agreed to abandon the additional ground should IPR2015- 01666 be joined with this proceeding. See id. at 2 n.1. To administer the proceedings more efficiently, we granted LG Electronics, Inc.’s Motion for Joinder, joining Case IPR2015-01666 with the instant proceeding. Id. at 5. For purposes of this Decision, we refer to LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Electronics, Inc., jointly, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “Patent Owner repeats its unsuccessful argument that, “[w]ithout offering a construction for this term, the Petitioner has failed to meet the burden of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id. Petitioner responds that this term (1) does not require construction; (2) is limited to a specific embodiment in the specification; (3) and imports a limitation from the specification into the claims. Reply 3–4. Having considered the full record developed during trial, we agree with Petitioner that this term does not require construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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)). Patent Owner’s arguments distinguishing the prior art do not rely on a particular construction for this term. See infra.” slip op. at 6

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

    “the ’176 grandparent application is insufficient. “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Reply 5–6. We find that the cited disclosures in the ’176 grandparent application do not describe the density, size, depth, or height of the deformities at approximate midpoints between adjacent pairs of light sources. As discussed above, Patent Owner maintains that a skilled artisan reading the ’176 grandparent application would know that “the approximate midpoint between the two light sources is an area farther away from a light source.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded by this argument, for it does not establish that the approximate midpoint between adjacent pairs of light sources is the only area farther away from a light source. As Petitioner points out, “the increased distance from the light source is not limited to a distance along the length of the panel member, along the width of the panel member, or along any direction at all.” Reply 11. Thus, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden under Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (burden of production shifted to patent owner to prove entitlement to earlier filing date).” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “In view of the foregoing, we determine that Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the ’176 grandparent application, as originally filed, provides written description support for the disputed limitation. Therefore, we determine that claims 1–5 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’176 grandparent application and Patent Owner is thus entitled only to the effective filing date of the application for the ʼ973 patent, February 9, 2007. As a consequence, we find that Shinohara qualifies as prior art.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,434,973 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,434,973

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.