• Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. v. Venkat KondaRehearing denied
  PTAB · Sep 16, 2020 · IPR2020-00260 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, leaving institution in place for claims 1–7, 11, 15–18, 20–22, 32, and 47.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Patent Owner, as the party challenging the Decisions, has the burden of showing that the Decisions should be modified. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 90. The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide goes on to state that “[a]bsent a showing of ‘good cause’ prior to filing the request for rehearing or in the request for rehearing itself, new evidence will not be admitted.” Id. (citing Huawei, Paper 19 at 4).” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Baker testifies as to his education and qualifications and provides his curriculum vitae. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–12; Ex. 1003. At this preliminary stage, we cannot say that Dr. Baker’s scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge will not be helpful in understanding the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). On this record, we are not persuaded that Dr. Baker’s testimony should be disregarded. Id. at 8. Therefore, even if Dr. Baker were not a person of ordinary skill in the art as Patent Owner contends, it does not follow that he is unqualified to testify in these proceedings. Nothing was misapprehended or overlooked in considering Dr. Baker’s testimony.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “(Ex. 2001). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner cited the Konda Declaration when discussing the experience and qualifications of the named inventor of the ’523 patent. Prelim. Resp. 8–9. The education level of the inventor, however, is just one of several factors that we may consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (enumerating six factors that “may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art” (quoting Evt’l Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983))). And, as Patent Owner noted in the Preliminary Response, “these factors are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256). In any event, in the Decision we also considered Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art, noted the differences between them, and stated that “[o]ur determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions.” Dec. 7. Therefore, our evaluation of Petitioner’s challenges and Dr. Baker’s testimony in support thereof would have been the same under Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See id. (“[W]e note that our conclusions would be same under either definition.”).” slip op. at 7

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,269,523
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2020 · IPR2019-00026 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 15, and 41 were not shown unpatentable: Abadi did not identify suspicious code in its annotations, and the Abadi and Gryaznov combination did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; 2 Abadi et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,253,370 B1, issued June 26, 2001 (filed Dec. 1, 1997) (Ex. 1008, “Abadi”). 3 Dmitry O. Gryaznov, Scanners of the Year 2000: Heuristics, Virus Bull. Conf. 225 (Sept. 1995) (Ex. 1009, 2–11, “Gryaznov”). (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles stated above in mind.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we see no reason to disturb their agreed construction of “Downloadable” as “an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer,” with which the parties state their express agreement. We clarify in Section II.D.2. below that we agree with Patent Owner that the executable application program that is to be run on the destination computer must be the same executable application program that is downloaded from the source computer within the agreed construction. Sur-reply 1–2. This interpretation is not a question of the construction of the term “Downloadable” itself, but rather flows from the express language of the challenged claims, in which “the Downloadable” that is “ma[de] . . . available to web clients” in the final step of each of independent claims 1 and 41 has its antecedent basis in the first claim step, “receiving . . . a Downloadable.” Likewise, the antecedent in claim 15 for “the Downloadable” that is made available to web clients is the Downloadable in which suspicious code is identified by the content inspection engine. We also agree with Patent Owner that the claimed “linking” of a DSP “to the Downloadable” does not compel a different understanding because we are not persuaded that the linking contemplated in the ’844 patent requires modification of the code of the Downloadable itself. Sur-reply 2–3.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Having considered the full record developed during trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the replacement of the word “profile” with “information” does not add any clarity to the meaning of this phrase and that the proper construction of “Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in [the received / a] Downloadable” in the context of the ’844 patent is “profile that must at least include, but is not necessarily limited only to, an identification of hostile, potentially hostile, undesirable, or potentially undesirable code in the corresponding Downloadable.” PO Resp. 7–8. Regardless, we do not discern that the difference between the parties’ positions with respect to these phrases is dispositive of any issues in this proceeding.” slip op. at 14

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

    “generate an ID for the Downloadable.” PO Resp. 21 (emphasis added) (quoting Ex. 2015, 15), 23 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 2015, 20). Based on Patent Owner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that the ’639 provisional demonstrates possession by the inventors of linking a DSP to the Downloadable “before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.” Rather, by the time that the DSP has been linked to the Downloadable (e.g., by code scanner 325, in Patent Owner’s mapping), we understand that the Downloadable has already been received—and hence “made available”—by the web server. Notably, this conclusion does not depend on where the “linking” occurs—particularly, whether it may occur at a network gateway, a focus of the parties’ claim construction arguments (see, e.g., Pet. 25–27; PO Resp. 10–12; Section II.B.5, supra)—but instead on when it occurs relative to the Downloadable being made available to clients. Further, having considered the alleged Appendix to the ’639 provisional (Ex. 2015, 37–45), including portions cited by Dr. Butler in related litigation (see Ex. 2047), we are not persuaded that anything in the Appendix demonstrates possession of linking “before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.” In conclusion, therefore, we are not persuaded that the inventors were in possession of the subject matter of the challenged claims at any time prior to the December 22, 1997, filing date of the ’648 application.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 6,154,844 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,154,844
• Flir Systems, Inc. / Flir Maritime US, Inc. (F/K/A Raymarine, Inc.) v. Garmin Switzerland GmbHSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2018 · IPR2017-00946 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 28, 29, and 45 were held unpatentable; claims 1–7, 12–23, 25–27, and 41–44 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 73 and 74 were allowed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “C. Legal Principles 1. Anticipation A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if “the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We analyze the ground based on anticipation in accordance with the above-stated principles.” slip op. at 22

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

    “and agree with Patent Owner that the terms “re-routing the course” and “re-route the course” mean “to change at least a portion of the route of the course relative to a previous routing.” That is, there must be a first routing of a course and that routing must be changed by performance of the marine route calculation algorithm to avoid preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints. The construction is consistent with the words of the claims. The claims do not merely require routing a course, but “re-routing the course.” The ordinary meaning of the prefix “re” is that something is being done again. See Tr. 18 (Petitioner agreeing that “if you put R-E in front of a word, normally that means it’s occurring a second time”). Although the claims do not explicitly recite both an original “routing” of a course that is changed by “re-routing the course,” the original “routing” is implicitly required by the use of the prefix “re.” See Tr. 34 (Patent Owner agreeing that although the claims do not explicitly require an initial routing, the initial routing is implicit in the use of “re-routing”), 44–45 (Petitioner agreeing that “re-routing” ordinarily implies an initial routing).” slip op. at 10

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

    “proposed construction of “course” as “the path of intended travel of a craft with respect to the earth.” Instead, we need only focus on the words recited in the claim. Claim 1, which is representative, recites that performing the marine route calculation algorithm to “route a course between a first location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions,” where such performance includes “identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. The other independent claims recite similar limitations. See Ex. 1001, claims 12, 20, 27. Based on the limitation recited in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of routing a “course” encompasses the identification of one or more non-user selected waypoints between a first location and a potential waypoint. No further construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the person of ordinary skill in the art need not have first-hand experience with marine navigation devices and systems. Pet. Reply 25–26. The ’703 patent explicitly defines “marine navigation” broadly, noting that “the use of the word ‘marine’ in the embodiments of the present invention (including the claims) could be replaced with the phrase ‘non-street based.’” Ex. 1001, 1:57–67 (emphasis added). Such non-street based navigation is broad enough to encompass avionic navigation. See Pet. Reply 25–26; cf. Ex. 1003, 4–7 (demonstrating Dr. Braasch’s experience in avionic navigation). We find that Petitioner’s definition is supported by the testimony of its expert, Dr. Braasch, and, for the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded that the person of ordinary skill in the art necessarily would have had first-hand experience in marine—as opposed to non-street based— navigation. We, therefore, determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner’s proposed definition correctly states the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we apply it for purposes of this Decision.7, 8” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,268,703 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,268,703
• Texas Association Of Realtors v. Uber Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00615 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 are unpatentable under § 103(a); the contingent motion to amend is denied because substitute claims are obvious and lack written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “II. ANALYSIS Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish the facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Michael Goodchild, Ph.D. (Ex. 1010) and the Reply Declaration of Dr. Goodchild (Ex. 1020). Patent Owner does not rely on any supporting declaration or cross-examination testimony. Below, we discuss whether Petitioner has met its burden with respect to claims 1–28. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,2 i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 7

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

    “First, Petitioner argues that based on the dictionary definition of “demarcate,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of “demarcating” is “‘to determine or mark off the boundaries or limits of’ something.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1013, RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY, (2d ed. 2001), 5); Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 35, 36. Next, Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “delimiting” is “determining or marking off the boundaries or limits of something, such as by providing a perimeter line or highlighting.” Pet. 7; Ex. 1013, 4; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 37–39. Petitioner reasons that the Specification provides examples of delimiting “via a perimeter line in any graphical way” and by highlighting. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:34–39, 8:13–19). Patent Owner does not address these interpretations in its Response, but at oral hearing Patent Owner agrees that Petitioner’s interpretations were “a fair assessment.” Tr. 92:19–94:3. Patent Owner also responds that there was no substantive difference between the two terms – “demarcating” and “delimiting.” Id. at 93:19–29. Petitioner’s proposed interpretations for “demarcating” and “delimiting” are consistent with the claim language, written description of the ’045 patent, and the plain meaning of each term. We therefore interpret “demarcating” to mean “determining or marking off the boundaries or limits of something,” and interpret “delimiting” to mean “determining or marking off the boundaries or limits of something, such as by providing a perimeter line or highlighting.”” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties do not argue in the Petition or Patent Owner Response that we should adopt a specific formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Goodchild, however, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’045 patent “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree (or its equivalent), and three years’ experience in the development, management, and use of geographic information systems and related geospatial technologies.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 14. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’045 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’045 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Dr. Goodchild’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore adopt it for purposes of this Decision. As noted, we have also considered the cited references as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner also provides a persuasive rationale for combining the teachings of O’Clair and Tadman. Id. at 9–10, 14–15. Specifically, Petitioner contends both references are in “similar fields,” with both references referring to the mapping application Google Maps, and [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and desirable at the time of the ’045 Patent’s filing to combine the features of Tadman into O’Clair to achieve, for example, the ability for a “user to conduct a joint query by using both spatial and non-spatial searches” and the other “advanced features” described by Tadman. Id. at 9–10 (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 50–51). As further explained by Dr. Goodchild, “[t]he combination of O’Clair’s systems and methods with Tadman’s teachings of polygon-based search would yield the predictable and desirable result of a GIS [geographic information] system which allowed a user to obtain search results located with a polygon-shaped area of interest.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 52; see also Tr. 17:17–19:19. In its Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s rationale for combining features of Tadman and O’Clair, nor does Patent Owner challenge Petitioner’s rationale for combining any of the prior art. See Tr. 38:21–39:33 (counsel for Patent Owner agreeing lack of motivation to combine is not argued in the Patent Owner Response). We find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,510,045 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,510,045
• 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
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 9, 2016 · IPR2016-00145 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, 22–26, 29, and 30 because the asserted combinations relied on references published after the claims’ November 6, 1997 priority date.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “publication, and Ji renders the challenged claims obvious. Pet. 25–60. As explained above, the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date. Touboul was published on May 22, 1998 (Ex. 1003 (43)), while the ’583 publication was published on July 15, 1999 (Ex. 1005 (43)). Thus, neither qualifies as prior art. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combination of Touboul and the ’583 publication, or the combination of Touboul, the ’583 publication, and Ji, renders the challenged claims obvious. CONCLUSION On this record, Petitioner has not shown that Touboul and the ’583 publication are prior art to the challenged claims of the ’926 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to the patentability of at least one of those claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The ’194 patent describes the code scanner sending the Downloadable and the DSP data to the ACL comparator for comparison with the security policy. Ex. 1007, 6:9–12. Petitioner does not argue that the Downloadable and the DSP data must be transmitted independently. In other words, the Downloadable and the DSP data may be transmitted together, that is, with the DSP data attached to the Downloadable. As stated above, we accept Petitioner’s proposed construction of “append/appending” to mean “attach/attaching.” See supra at 5. Thus, we are persuaded by Patent Owner that the ’194 patent provides written description support for both the appending and the transmitting limitations.” slip op. at 7

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

    “publication, and Ji renders the challenged claims obvious. Pet. 25–60. As explained above, the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date. Touboul was published on May 22, 1998 (Ex. 1003 (43)), while the ’583 publication was published on July 15, 1999 (Ex. 1005 (43)). Thus, neither qualifies as prior art. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combination of Touboul and the ’583 publication, or the combination of Touboul, the ’583 publication, and Ji, renders the challenged claims obvious. CONCLUSION On this record, Petitioner has not shown that Touboul and the ’583 publication are prior art to the challenged claims of the ’926 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to the patentability of at least one of those claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,613,926
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2016 · IPR2015-02000 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–22 because the claims were entitled to the November 6, 1997 priority date, so the asserted references were not prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “B. The Applicable Legal Standard Under 35 U.S.C. § 120 Under 35 U.S.C § 120, to claim the benefit of the filing date from an earlier application, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 609 (CCPA 1977) (“[T]here has to be a continuous chain of co-pending applications each of which satisfies the requirements of § 112 with respect to the subject matter presently claimed.”). If any application in the priority chain fails to include the requisite disclosure, the later-filed application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of applications preceding the break in the priority chain. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 10

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

    “the ʼ194 or ʼ780 patents. Pet. 12. However, as Patent Owner points out, that is not the proper test. Prelim. Resp. 13–14. The claimed subject matter need not be described “in haec verba” in the original specification in order to satisfy the written description requirement. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Rather, “the test . . . is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant possessed what is claimed in the later filed application as of the filing date of the earlier filed application.” Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We are persuaded that, on the record presented, this test has been met. We are persuaded that the disclosure in the ʼ194 patent of a security database storing “known Downloadables” provides written description support for the file cache recitation in the ʼ731 patent claims. Prelim. Resp. 17–19. Petitioner does not dispute that known Downloadables are files. Pet. 26 (“Touboul discloses generating and using a Downloadable ID (file identifier) to identify each Downloadable (file).”). Moreover, Petitioner specifically refers to components of the security database as caches: “Claim 1 [of the ʼ731 patent] is the obvious combination of a cache such as the cache taught by Tso with the scanner, security profile cache, and security policy cache in Touboul’s gateway as detailed below.” Pet. 20 (emphasis added). We see no basis to distinguish these descriptions of caches from the storage of Downloadables in the security database. Moreover, we are persuaded that a security database providing temporary storage of known Downloadables meets the requirements of a cache as “a memory for holding a file, at least temporarily.” See supra.” slip op. at 11

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

    “E. Conclusion We agree with Patent Owner that the ʼ731 patent claims are entitled to the benefit of the grandparent application filed on November 6, 1997. Accordingly, Touboul and the other art asserted by Petitioner does not qualify as prior art to the ʼ731 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as asserted by Petitioner.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded, either, by Petitioner’s position, unsupported by any citation of authority, that Patent Owner’s decision not to claim the benefit of the earlier filing date during prosecution of the ʼ731 patent is an admission. Nor are we persuaded by the conclusory testimony of Petitioner’s expert on the filing date issue. See Rubin Decl. ¶ 69. Under our rules, expert testimony that does not have a proper basis is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 13

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,418,731
• Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01897 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Symantec did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing: the challenged claims were entitled to the 1997 priority date, making Touboul I and II not prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “requesting inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 B2 to Edery et al. (Ex. 1001, “the ’494 patent”). Pet. 1. Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We review the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons that follow and on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “necessary to provide a written description of a claimed invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 may be incorporated into a patent application by reference, provided that the incorporated reference is a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication that does not itself incorporate such “essential material” by reference, by “[e]xpress[ing] a clear intent to incorporate by reference by using the words ‘incorporat(e)’ and ‘reference’” and “[c]learly identify[ing] the referenced patent [or] application.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c), (d). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has explained that “incorporated patents are ‘effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions (Pet. 11–15), the “boilerplate language” used in the ’822, ’926, ’086, and ’494 patents, broadly stating without further qualification that the earlier-filed patents are “incorporated by reference,” is sufficient in view of Federal Circuit precedent to incorporate the disclosure of at least the ’780 patent2 into each later-filed patent. See, e.g., Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding “entire . . . application disclosure was incorporated by the broad and unequivocal language: ‘The disclosures of the two applications are hereby incorporate[d] by reference’”). We agree with Patent Owner that the facts here are distinguishable from those in cases on which Petitioner relies. Prelim. Resp. 23–24. For example, in Zenon, as Patent Owner asserts, there was a lack of continuity of disclosure in a priority chain because the priority references were not incorporated in their entirety, but only with respect to specific portions. Id. On this record, and particularly in view of Petitioner’s statement that the specification of the ’780 patent, among others, describes the “claim elements and features” not otherwise included in the specifications of the ’822, ’926, ’086, and ’494 patents (Pet. 10)—and, thus, does not itself incorporate such “essential material” by reference (see 37 C.F.R. §1.57(d))—we agree with Patent Owner’s conclusion that “each application in the priority chain contains written description support for the challenged claims, and continuity of disclosure exists up to and including the ’494 [p]atent without interruption.” Prelim. Resp. 16.3” slip op. at 11

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

    “among others, it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. 35 U.S.C. § 120. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion that “neither the ’086 patent, nor the ’926 patent, include a priority claim or any reference whatsoever to a number of earlier-filed applications (i.e., the ’194 patent, ’520 patent and ’639 provisional) that are included in the priority chain of the ’494 patent” (Pet. 6), the ’086 and ’926 patents both include priority claims to the ’194 patent and incorporate the ’194 patent by reference in its entirety. Ex. 1002, [63], 1:26–30; Ex. 1003, [63], 1:23–27. Moreover, as Patent Owner points out, the ’520 patent and ’639 provisional are not within the priority chain from the ’494 patent to the ’194 patent, and the failure of the ’926 and ’086 patents to include a priority claim or reference to the ’520 patent and ’639 provisional does not affect the ’494 patent’s entitlement to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date of the ’388 application that matured into the ’194 patent (i.e., Touboul I). Petitioner also argues that the failure of the ’926 and ’086 patents to include a priority claim or any reference to the ’520 patent and ’639 provisional constitutes a break in the priority chain of the ’494 patent. Pet. 17. For purposes of this Decision, however, we need not reach this issue.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “C. Anticipation by and Obviousness over Touboul I and Touboul II On this record and for the reasons stated in Section II.B. above, we are persuaded that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of the ’494 patent are entitled at least to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date of the ’388 patent that matured into the ’194 patent, and, accordingly, that neither Touboul I (i.e., the ’194 patent) nor Touboul II, which issued on November 28, 2000, from an application filed December 22, 1997, constitutes prior art to those claims. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial on any of the asserted grounds. III. CONCLUSION On this record, Petitioner has not shown that Touboul I and Touboul II are prior art to the challenged claims of the ’494 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to the patentability of those claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,494
• Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01895 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the challenged claims were entitled to the November 6, 1997 filing date, making the asserted references unavailable as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “or the combination of Touboul I and Dan, renders the challenged claims obvious. Pet. 32–52. As explained above, the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the November 6, 1997 filing date. Thus, neither Touboul I (the ’194 patent) nor Touboul II (issued on November 28, 2000, from an application filed December 22, 1997) constitutes prior art to those claims. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 14 combination of Touboul I and Touboul II, or the combination of Touboul I and Dan, renders the challenged claims obvious. CONCLUSION On this record, Petitioner has not shown that Touboul I and Touboul II are prior art to the challenged claims of the ’926 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to the patentability of at least one of those claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for an inter partes review of claims 15, 18–20, 22, 25–27, and 30 of the ’926 patent is denied.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Incorporation by reference “provides a method for integrating material from various documents into a host document . . . by citing such material in a manner that makes clear that the material is effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein.” Zenon, 506 F.3d at 1378 (quotation marks omitted). Incorporation by reference must be set forth in the specification and must (1) express a clear intent to incorporate by reference by using the root words “incorporate” and “reference” (e.g., “incorporate by reference”); and (2) clearly identify the referenced patent, application, or publication. 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c). “Essential material,” such as material necessary to provide a written description of a claimed invention, may be incorporated by reference by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, as long as the referenced patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. Id. § 1.57(d). In Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit concluded that the broad and unequivocal language “[t]he disclosures of the two applications are hereby incorporated by reference” incorporates the entire disclosures of the two applications. Id. at 1335. The incorporation statement in the ’822 patent is similar: 9 This application is also a Continuation-In-Part of and hereby incorporates by reference patent application Ser. No. 09/539,667, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,804,780 . . . . This application is also a Continuation-In-Part of and hereby incorporates by reference patent application Ser. No. 09/551,302, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,480,962 . . . . Ex. 1002, 1:11–19. Petitioner acknowledges that the ’780 patent provides written support for the limitations of the challenged claims. Pet. 10. In other words, the ’780 patent does not itself incorporate such “essential material” by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(d). Thus, the holding of Harari informs our conclusion that the ’822 patent incorporates by reference the ’780 patent in its entirety. Because the ’194 and ’780 patents share essentially the same disclosure (compare Ex. 1004 with Ex. 1005), we agree with Patent Owner that continuity of disclosure exists between the ’194 and ’926 patents.” slip op. at 9

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

    “ANALYSIS Claim Construction In an inter partes review, the Board interprets a claim term in an unexpired patent according to its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1278–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 1 Shlomo Touboul, U.S. Patent No. 6,092,194, issued July 18, 2000 (Ex. 1005, “Touboul I,” or “the ’194 patent”). 2 Shlomo Touboul and Nachshon Gal, U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844, issued Nov. 28, 2000 (Ex. 1012, “Touboul II”). 3 Asit Dan et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,825,877, issued October 20, 1998 (Ex. 1013, “Dan”). 4 cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (2016). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,613,926
• Motionpoint Corporation v. Transperfect Global, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00060 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 are unpatentable for lack of adequate written description under § 112, first paragraph.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “that “hyperlink” is a well-understood term that the ’022 patent uses in accordance with its ordinary meaning. As explained above, the Microsoft Computer User’s Dictionary makes clear that a hyperlink includes a connection to another element or document. Patent Owner points to no persuasive evidence that the ’022 patent describes a hyperlink as separate from this connection such that the connection can be changed with the hyperlink remaining the same. Indeed, the ’022 patent describes “replac[ing] all links in the translated web page 7 with links that point to the translation manager 4” as part of the translation process. Ex. 1001, 3:37–38. Thus, as described in the patent, changing the connection to point to the translation manager requires a new link. This is consistent with the ordinary meaning of a hyperlink as including a specific connection from one document to another element or document. Our preliminary construction of “hyperlink” included “a link or connection” but did not include a recitation of the element or document linked. To resolve the parties’ dispute, consistent with the ordinary meaning and the specification, we conclude, on the full record before us, that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood “hyperlink” to mean “a connection between an element in a hypertext document, such as a word, phrase, symbol, or image, and a different element in the document, another hypertext document, a file, or a script.”” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “First, the inter partes reexamination of the ’022 patent is relevant to our consideration of the claim construction issues presented here because claim construction was at issue in the reexamination. Second, we see no risk of undue prejudice that would outweigh the probative value of the documents and evidence submitted in the reexamination. Of note, is that this proceeding is not a jury trial and, thus, the risk of prejudice in this forum is less than what may otherwise exist before a jury. Third, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibit 1013 is not hearsay at least under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) because the testimony in Dr. Nakhimovsky’s Declaration was submitted by, and on behalf of, Patent Owner to the Patent Office, thus evidencing that Patent Owner manifested a belief that the statements contained therein were true. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as applied to Exhibit 1013 is denied.” slip op. at 22

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s first argument is contrary to our constructions of the term “hyperlink” and the phrase “said hyperlink.” As reflected in our construction, “said hyperlink” in each of independent claims 1, 17, and 26, refers back to the original recitation of “one or more hyperlinks” in the original (untranslated) electronic communication. The portion of the specification relied upon by Patent Owner does not disclose providing translation of said further electronic communications when the original one or more hyperlink is activated. Rather, this disclosure indicates that the translation manager may replace all of the links (i.e., hyperlinks) in the translated web page with links that point to the translation manager. These replaced links are in the translated electronic communication (e.g., web page 7), and not in the original untranslated electronic communication (e.g., web page 2). Thus, this disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of a translation manager that provides translation of further electronic communications when the one or more hyperlinks in the original untranslated electronic communication is activated (i.e., one or more hyperlinks with unmodified destination addresses). See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 25

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not reached

    “E. Indefiniteness of Claims 23 and 25–28 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph Our determination that each challenged claim is unpatentable for lack of an adequate written description renders it unnecessary to reach Petitioner’s contentions that claims 23 and 25–28 of the ’022 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 6,857,022 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,857,022

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.