• Skullcandy, Inc. v. Earin ABInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00690 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Director review

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 20 and 21 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that, for the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus decline to institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed.Cir.1986)).” slip op. at 7

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Analysis of the Parties’ Contentions We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition is conclusory––the Cooperstock Declaration merely reiterates the position set forth in the Petition and does not provide sufficient detail or explanation of why Olodort’s “low power state” would have been understood by a POSITA to mean that “existing connections to a second wireless earbud and to a wireless audio streaming host device will be disconnected,” as recited in claim 20. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 84–87. We further agree that claim 38 is not directed to entering “a standby mode” as it recites “the low power state is a standby mode from which the second earpiece is awakened in response to detecting that the second earpiece has been attached to an ear.” Ex. 1002, claim 38 (emphasis added). As such, we agree with Patent Owner that Olodort’s “claim 38 contains no disclosure concerning what happens to ‘existing connections’ when exiting, let alone entering, the ‘standby mode.’” See Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1002, claims 32, 34, 38). We further agree with Patent Owner that the Cooperstock Declaration in paragraphs 86 and 87 sets forth an alternative obviousness theory “based on a modification to Olodort to add ‘circuitry for disconnecting the earbuds from one another and from any wireless audio streaming host device when in the low power state’” that is improperly incorporated by reference into the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (emphasis added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for challenged to each claim.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another.”)). As such, we need not and do not consider this alternative obviousness theory.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “Analysis of the Parties’ Contentions We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition is conclusory––the Cooperstock Declaration merely reiterates the position set forth in the Petition and does not provide sufficient detail or explanation of why Olodort’s “low power state” would have been understood by a POSITA to mean that “existing connections to a second wireless earbud and to a wireless audio streaming host device will be disconnected,” as recited in claim 20. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 84–87. We further agree that claim 38 is not directed to entering “a standby mode” as it recites “the low power state is a standby mode from which the second earpiece is awakened in response to detecting that the second earpiece has been attached to an ear.” Ex. 1002, claim 38 (emphasis added). As such, we agree with Patent Owner that Olodort’s “claim 38 contains no disclosure concerning what happens to ‘existing connections’ when exiting, let alone entering, the ‘standby mode.’” See Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1002, claims 32, 34, 38). We further agree with Patent Owner that the Cooperstock Declaration in paragraphs 86 and 87 sets forth an alternative obviousness theory “based on a modification to Olodort to add ‘circuitry for disconnecting the earbuds from one another and from any wireless audio streaming host device when in the low power state’” that is improperly incorporated by reference into the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (emphasis added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for challenged to each claim.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another.”)). As such, we need not and do not consider this alternative obviousness theory.” slip op. at 18

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,402,120
• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00069 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that the prior art teaches creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, as claims 1–18 and 21–23 require.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

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

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification describes only fingerprint creation outside the virtual machine monitor because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. See Sur-reply 1– 2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner does not contest that Capalik’s fingerprint generation occurs outside the components that Petitioner identifies as the claimed virtual machine monitor. Reply 1–3; see Pet. 18–23 (mapping Capalik’s hypervisor kernel 516 to the claimed virtual machine monitor); id. at 30–31 (mapping Capalik’s processing module 508 and signature generation engine 530 to the claimed fingerprint creation); see also Prelim. Resp. 21–23 (explaining Petitioner’s mapping). Instead, Petitioner asserts that the at-issue claim language—“at the virtual machine monitor”—does not require “that each of the subsequently recited steps must be performed by or in the [virtual machine monitor],” but instead only requires “that the fingerprint is generated by the same decoy system that contains the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2. Petitioner argues that the intrinsic record supports its position because “[n]owhere in the ’697 Patent is there any teaching or suggestion that a [virtual machine monitor] creates a fingerprint/signature indicative of attack activity,” and instead, “[t]he ’697 Patent teaches that its signature generation engine is separate from the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:12–19). In addition, Petitioner asserts that requiring fingerprint creation at the virtual machine monitor “directly” slip op. at 8

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “D. Statutory Disclaimer and Remaining Challenged Claims The Petition challenges claims 1–23. Pet. 10. However, because Patent Owner disclaimed claims 19 and 20 (Ex. 2010), the remaining challenged claims are 1–18 and 21–23. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (2020) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). Of the remaining challenged claims, only claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,106,697
• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,106,697
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01500 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  Institution of IPR challenging claims 1–5 was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or an equivalent field, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures and protocols, and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). Petitioner further proposes that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). 6 Elgamal, U.S. Patent No. 6,898,248 B1, issued May 24, 2005 (Ex. 1008, “Elgamal”). 7 Frank et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0035469 A1, published Feb. 20, 2003 (Ex. 1006, “Frank”). 8 Zha et al., “Soft-Decision Successive Interference Cancellation CDMA Receiver with Amplitude Averaging and Robust to Timing Errors,” Proc. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2001 (GLOBECOM ’01), vol. 2, 2001, pp. 743–747 (Ex. 1010, “Zha”). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’703 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “provide sufficiently persuasive evidence in support of its position that claim 1’s “decoders” has a meaning broad enough to correspond to Zha’s decision rule. Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s understanding of claim 1’s “decoders” by arguing that “[Patent Owner] does not argue that the specification disclaims decoders that do not perform error correction, or otherwise expressly limits the claimed bank of decoders to error correction.” Prelim. Reply 6. In support of its position, Petitioner cites Dr. Min’s testimony that “[i]n my opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that the ‘decision rule’ would be implemented using a decoder, as decoders typically make bit decisions.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 178; Pet. 59. Dr. Min does not cite any objective evidence in support of this view. Ex. 1003 ¶ 178. In response, Patent Owner marshals intrinsic evidence, along with Dr. Caire’s testimony based on objective supporting evidence. Prelim. Resp. 47–48; Prelim. Sur-Reply 5–6. For example, arguing that all embodiments disclosed in the ’703 patent use error-correcting coding, Patent Owner emphasizes the ’703 patent’s statement that “the [’703 patent’s] specification states that ‘[t]he invention is based on an iterative decoding solution that exploits error correction codes.’” Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (quoting Ex. 1001, 25:27–29 (emphasis added by Patent Owner)). Patent Owner also cites the Abstract of the ’703 patent, which states that “[t]he present invention provides Turbo-decoding for joint signal demodulation based on an iterative decoding solution that exploits error correction codes.” Ex. 1001, code (57); Prelim. Sur-Reply 6. Patent Owner also cites Dr. Caire’s testimony that “any reasonable understanding of a decoder is one that implements an error correction coding approach.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 98; Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Caire cite objective evidence that supports this view. Ex. 2001 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 2003, 3; Ex. 2004, 11; Ex. 2005, 228). Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Patent Owner’s more persuasive than Petitioner’s. Starting with the intrinsic evidence, Patent Owner’s citation of the ’703 patent’s repeated statements that the “invention . . . exploits error correction codes” is more persuasive than Petitioner’s argument that the ’703 patent does not disclaim other approaches. Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 25:27–29, code (57)); Prelim. Reply 6. Petitioner argues that certain background documents suggest decoders may have a broad meaning, but this attorney argument warrants less weight than Dr. Caire’s testimony. Prelim. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 2003, 18–20; Ex. 2004, 7, 9). Accordingly, in sum, Petitioner does not” slip op. at 16

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

    “In view of all the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not find a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing on this issue. When questioning who exactly had rights to which specific inventions of Mr. McElwain’s, Petitioner glosses over the key, undisputed fact that Mr. McElwain assigned the invention of the ’703 patent to the exact same entity to which Brommer was assigned, specifically BAESI. Ex. 2012, 2; Ex. 2011, 2. Mr. McElwain did so shortly after BAE filed Mr. McElwain’s provisional application on April 14, 2003, which both parties treat as the ’703 patent’s date of invention. Ex. 2012, 2; Ex. 2013, 1; Prelim. Resp. 32; Prelim. Reply 1. This, in combination with Patent Owner’s evidence regarding Mr. McElwain’s EPIIA and BAE’s acquisition of Lockheed Martin’s Aerospace Electronics System Business, evinces that Mr. McElwain had an obligation on April 14, 2003, to assign the invention of the ’703 patent to BAESI. Exs. 2014–2016. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner does not advance a reason that Mr. McElwain would not have been obligated on April 14, 2003, to assign the invention of the ’703 patent to BAESI, much less provide evidence that he was not so obligated. See generally Prelim. Reply; Prelim. Sur-Reply 2. In sum, weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not find that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its position that Brommer is prior art to the ’703 patent for purposes of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its assertions that the claims of the ’703 patent would have been obvious over Brommer in combination with other references.” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,463,703
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01238 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 14–16 would have been obvious over Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Based on the record before us, Petitioner does not set forth sufficient argument and evidence to demonstrate that the combined teachings of Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith teach or suggest “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity,” as recited in claim 14. Accordingly, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the subject matter of independent claim 14 would have been obvious over Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith. Due to the dependency of claims 15 and 16 from claim 14, and for the same reasons as those explained above addressing claim 1, based on the record before us Petitioner does not set forth sufficient argument and evidence to demonstrate that the combination of Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 15 and 16. Accordingly, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the subject matter of dependent claims 15 and 16 would have been obvious over Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith.” slip op. at 24

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We find that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Ashwood Smith discloses, teaches, or suggests “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of a working entity and a protection entity,” as required by claim 14. Petitioner implicitly construes “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity” to require “calculat[ing] the probability of concurrent failure of the paths.” Pet. 77; see also id. (“calculating such probability for two paths”), 78 (also implicitly construing “digital logic . . . configured to determine an entity cost of said plurality of transport entity descriptors” to require “cost calculation”). We agree with Petitioner’s implicit construction because it is consistent with the claim language and the ’821 Patent Specification which discloses a simultaneous failure probability (SFP) function (Eq. 1) and SFP values calculated by a concurrent failure probability matrix. See Ex. 1001, 3:44–47, 6:5–11, 6:39–40. Similar to Doshi’s description of the probability of failure in terms of “very insignificant” (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 40), Petitioner’s cited disclosures of Ashwood Smith describe the probability of failure at a common point in terms of “fairly low” (see Ex. 1037, 3:21–23) “highly unlikely” (see Ex. 1037, 10:32), and “below a certain level” (see Ex. 1037, 11:7–8). Although Petitioner asserts that Ashwood Smith’s method determines the probability of failure at a common point between two paths (see Pet. 67), the teachings of Ashwood Smith cited by Petitioner do not support a finding that Ashwood Smith discloses, teaches, or suggests “digital logic . . . configured to determine the probability of concurrent failure,” as implicitly construed by Petitioner to require calculating a probability of concurrent failure of a working entity and a protection entity. Petitioner also cites Ashwood Smith’s disclosure suggesting a possible refinement to the disclosed method that would take into account the actual probability of failure at a common point shared by two or more working paths. See Ex. 1037, 10:21–24. Petitioner, however, does not direct us to any disclosure in Ashwood of digital logic configured to determine or calculate the probability of failure at a common point. See Pet. 66–69, 74–78. Instead, Petitioner overlooks Ashwood Smith’s disclosure that the probability of failure at a common point is allocated (i.e., distributed, assigned, given out) by the data transport network operator. See Ex. 1037, 11:4–6. This allocation of failure probability by the data transport operator is similar to the ’821 Patent Specification’s disclosure that “[s]pan failure probabilities may be assigned, for example, manually by a network operator based on network knowledge” and “[n]ode failure probabilities may be configured by the operator, typically based on vendor-provided mean time between failure (MTBF) parameters, and on infrastructure failure probability, for example, power failure probability.” Ex. 1001, 6:20–23, 6:29–33. We also give little weight to Petitioner’s witness Dr. Min’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 234–237) that Ashwood Smith teaches determining a probability of concurrent failure of two paths because, for the same reasons, it is not supported by an underlying factual basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “IPR2023–00402, we find that Doshi does not disclose, teach, or suggest “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity,” as required by claim 14. Although Doshi discloses selecting a subset of path pairs based on cost (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 144, Fig. 11), and that disjoint path pairs may have very insignificant probability of failure, Petitioner does not direct us to where Doshi discloses, teaches, or suggests “digital logic . . . configured determine the probability of concurrent failure of the primary path and the restoration path.” See Pet. 67, 74–76. We also give little weight to Petitioner’s witness Dr. Min’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 255) that determining path disjointedness corresponds to determining a probability of concurrent failure is entitled to little weight because, for the same reasons, it is not supported by an underlying factual basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). For example, Petitioner does not provide a factual basis for equating a determination of path disjointedness (e.g., strictly disjoint, partially disjoint) with a determination of the probability of concurrent failure of the primary and restoration path. We also give little weight to Dr. Min’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 258) that Doshi’s disclosure of selection logic configured to perform the method of Figure 11 teaches logic configured to determine probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity because it also is not supported by an underlying factual basis. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256–258; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 142–145; Fig. 11.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(‘POSITA’) would have had a working knowledge of network communications and multiprotocol label switching (‘MPLS’) techniques available at the time.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of network communications and been knowledgeable regarding MPLS techniques.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Patent Owner does not address the skill level of a person of ordinary of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For the purpose of determining whether to institute trial, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’821 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,830,821
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01249 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because neither the Hottinen–Lilleberg nor Zimmerman–Lilleberg combination showed the claimed parameter tracking unit or an equivalent for claims 1, 3–5, and 7–9.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to either ground asserted in the Petition. We therefore deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the ’505 patent had at least a bachelor’s in EE/CE/CS, physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation,” where “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–55). Patent Owner does not comment on Petitioner’s formulation or offer any competing formulation in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We find Petitioner’s proposal to be consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’505 patent, and accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16

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

    “for use in conjunction with a signal separation unit, in which each received signal has associated channel transfer functions.” Ex. 1001, 12:42–45. The preamble of independent claim 9 similarly recites “a parameter estimation unit for use in conjunction with a signal separation unit for estimating channel transfer function parameters from channel transfer functions.” Id. at 14:4–7. Petitioner, however, contends that “this claim term is not part of the preamble” and that “the preamble is [only] ‘In a multi-user detection system in which interfering signals are purposely allowed to exist.’” Pet. 14. Regardless, Petitioner further contends, to the extent there is any argument that that recitation is part of the preamble, “it is limiting at least because it provides antecedent basis to the ‘parameter estimation unit’ and ‘associated channel transfer functions’ terms that are used in the remainder of the body of the claims and is ‘essential to understanding the structural limitations’ of the parameter estimation unit.” Id. Apart from arguing that the recited “parameter estimation unit” is limiting, Petitioner does not propose any id. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s contentions and also does not argue that any construction is necessary for the parameter estimation unit. See generally Prelim. Resp. As reproduced in Section II.D. above, the preamble of claim 1, in its entirety, recites, “In a multi-user detection system in which interfering signals are purposely allowed to exist, a parameter estimation unit for use in conjunction with a signal separation unit, in which each received signal has associated channel transfer functions.” Ex. 1001, 12:41–45. The preamble of claim 9 is similar. Id. at 14:3–7 (reciting “In a multi-user detection system in which interfering signals are purposely allowed to exist, a parameter estimation unit for use in conjunction with a signal separation unit for estimating channel transfer function parameters from channel transfer functions”). The body of each claim recites the elements of the recited “parameter estimation unit,” namely, “a signal processor for determining said channel transfer functions for each received signal” and “means . . . for providing uninterrupted estimates of the channel transfer function parameters on a real-time basis . . . .” The phrase “In a multi-user detection system in which interfering signals are purposely allowed to exist” provides additional context for the environment in which the parameter estimation unit is intended to operate. Whether the preamble is limiting is a question that we do not need to decide here, however. Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Because Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the preamble recitations, and our decision herein need not reach a determination with regard to that question.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “A claim limitation using the phrase “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Section 112 ¶ 6 provides that: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. When construing a means-plus-function limitation under § 112 ¶ 6, it is necessary first to identify the claimed function, and then to look to the specification to identify the corresponding structure for that function. In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296–97 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Under that second step, “structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding 6 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’676 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date of the statute), we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112. associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Our Rules specifically require that the petition identify the corresponding structure in proposing a construction for a means-plus-function claim limitation. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). “This inquiry is undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,947,505
• Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,741,482
• Dyson Technology Ltd. / Dyson, Inc. v. Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00766 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious over the prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5

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

    “However, each of these asserted modifications is based on a teaching that is not present in Brown. Brown does not teach “a projection that provides resistance against ‘handle’ movement” or that “opening Brown’s ‘cover’ requires bending Brown’s ‘port,’” as asserted by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 22. As repeatedly noted, the identified “projection” appears to be nothing more than a portion of cover 14 the accessory/hose port. Petitioner’s arguments regarding a projection that provides resistance and a bendable port in Brown, appear to be nothing more than an effort to create the limitations of the claims in the prior art based on improper hindsight. For at least the above reasons, the Petition does not show how Brown teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the independent claims.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner argues that when cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) is in position on the vacuum, end wall 26 cannot open and, thus, that end wall is inhibited from opening. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 37, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–145 (similar statements from Petitioner’s declarant)). Petitioner then asserts that the catch is therefore inhibited from moving to the disengaged position. Id. at 46. The combination of Dimbylow and Howes does not teach this limitation and Petitioner’s assertions are not persuasive. As can be seen from the above annotated Figure, nothing inhibits Dimbylow’s catch 42 from moving to a disengaged position. See also Prelim. Resp 11–14. Rather, any time Howe’s button is pressed, thereby moving the push-rod (to the right in the Figure), catch 42 would disengage, whether the door opened or not. Though cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) inhibits end wall 26 from opening, it has no impact on movement of catch 42 (i.e. lock engaging member) from the engaged to disengaged position as required by the claim. Thus, the lock engaging member of Petitioner’s combination, i.e., the catch, is not inhibited from moving to a disengaged position when the accessory, i.e., the cleaning” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA”). Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner’s declarant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field and 2-3 years of experience in machine design, such as vacuum cleaners. Additional education could offset less experience and vice versa, and a POSA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means. Ex. 1002 ¶ 42; see also Pet. 22 (making the same assertion without citation to declarant). Patent Owner does not contest the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 2. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s (and its declarant’s) proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’477 patent and prior art of record. We adopt the above definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,568,477
• Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00749 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable, including failing to persuasively show parser-based domain-agent selection.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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). Having considered the arguments and the associated evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing with respect to any challenged claim. For example, Petitioner and Mr. Schmandt do not address the challenged claims’ selecting limitations in a sufficiently persuasive manner. Coffman’s disclosure is high-level, which Petitioner and Mr. Schmandt recognize. See, e.g., Pet. 48; Ex. 1002 ¶ 125. Coffman’s high-level discussion lacks clear disclosures of certain key things that Petitioner and Mr. Schmandt perceive in Coffman’s disclosure. And Petitioner and Mr. Schmandt do not provide sufficiently clear, persuasive explanation to substantiate their position that Coffman teaches the challenged claims’ selecting limitations.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “patent “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of speech- and natural language-interfaces for interacting with and directing computer systems and software, including speech recognition and processing (and more experience could substitute for less formal education, and vice versa).” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–15). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. See, generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the ’720 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Both Parties express that we do not need to construe any claim language explicitly. Pet. 23; Prelim. Resp. 13. We agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,693,720
• Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00748 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–6 and 9 obvious, including the domain-agent limitation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Because Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not address sufficiently persuasively the challenged claims’ “domain agent associated with the determined context,” the record does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “patent “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of speech- and natural language-interfaces for interacting with and directing computer systems and software, including speech recognition and processing (and more experience could substitute for less formal education, and vice versa).” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–15). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. See, generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the ’006 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Both parties express that we do not need to construe any claim language explicitly. Pet. 21; Prelim. Resp. 14. We agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Schmandt rests his opinion regarding the processing limitation on his testimony that “[a]s explained above, Coffman teaches that the conversationally-aware application associated with the determined context (‘the domain agent associated with the determined context’) is invoked to process the user’s request.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 139 (citing Ex. 1003, 37:2–4, 13:8–13, 58:9–11, 40:9–19, 30:4–10); see also Pet. 49–50 (same position citing same Coffman passages). This alleged teaching is not clearly in the cited passages of Coffman. And, although Mr. Schmandt represents that he “explained above”11 why he reads Coffman this way, he does not provide a cohesive, persuasive explanation of his reading of Coffman. Ex. 1002 ¶ 139. Instead, Mr. Schmandt’s testimony resorts significantly to conclusory statements without logical, persuasive support. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 125 (“making clear that an application is automatically selected and carries out a request as a result of processing by the conversational system.”). Petitioner does no better. See, e.g., Pet. 44.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,015,006

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.