- PTAB · Feb 17, 2022 · IPR2021-01315 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the circumstances here warrant exercise of discretion to deny the Petition. Patent Owner cites to our precedential case General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017). Prelim. Sur-reply 1–2. Patent Owner’s arguments for exercising discretion to deny institution, however, do not correspond to typically considered factors articulated in General Plastic because, as both parties indicate, this is not a case of followon petitions or multiple petitions challenging the ’500 patent. Prelim. Reply 3; Prelim. Sur-reply 1. There has only been a single petition for inter partes review filed against the ’500 patent. Prelim. Reply 3. Patent Owner cites to no other Board decisions with sufficiently similar circumstances where we exercised discretion to deny a Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Patent Owner contends that we should exercise the Director’s discretion to deny institution for a number of reasons, for example, because Petitioner’s challenges to Patent Owner’s patents are allegedly “an attempt to weaponize the IPR process, and impose increased costs and leverage on USWS’s valuable technology in an attempt to overtake this sector of the market.” Prelim. Resp. 15. We have considered all of Patent Owner’s allegations and are not persuaded that exercising discretion is warranted. Patent Owner’s allegations are not supported by sufficient evidence and, to the contrary, it is undisputed that Patent Owner has asserted seven of its patents against Petitioner in district court litigation. Petitioner expresses reasonable concern that Patent Owner may initiate additional district court litigation regarding its as yet unasserted patents. See Prelim. Reply 2.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Although Broussard was presented to the Office, we find that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied, because the Petition does not assert Broussard alone. Rather, Broussard is asserted in combination with Kaarstad in every ground set forth in the Petition. Pet. 14. Kaarstand was not presented to the Office during prosecution. Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that Kaarstad is cumulative of Seiver and Kristensen; on the record before us, we agree with Petitioner that it is not. Prelim. Resp. 27–30, Prelim. Reply 5. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that “Kaarstad includes a power distribution network with two switchgear units and a tiebreaker coupled therebetween.” Prelim. Reply 5 (citing Pet. 24–29). We further agree with Petitioner that these elements disclosed in Kaarstad (i.e. two switchgear units and a tiebreaker coupled therebetween) are the same elements that Patent Owner used to overcome the Examiner’s rejection based on Seiver. Prelim. Reply 5; Ex. 1004, 39. In addition, we agree with Petitioner that Kristensen was never relied on by the Examiner during the underlying prosecution, and that Kristensen merely discloses a single switchgear as opposed to the two switchgears and tiebraker required by the claims. Prelim. Reply 5; Ex. 2002, Abst., 7:52. For these reasons, we determine that Kaarstad is not cumulative of Siever or Kristensen. Thus, the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied because the combination of references asserted in the Petition was not presented previously to the Office. Under the circumstances presented here, we determine that exercising discretion to deny the Petition under § 325(d) is unwarranted.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that claims 1–11 and 13–19 of the ’500 patent are obvious over Broussard and Kaarstad.” slip op. at 31
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“arguments are persuasive. Specifically, we are persuaded that the ’500 patent is not entitled to priority to the November 16, 2012, filing date of the ’085 application because the ’500 patent and the ’085 application do not share any common inventors. See U.S.C. § 120 (“which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application”); 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(d)(1) (“Each prior-filed application must name the inventor or a joint inventor named in the later-filed application as the inventor or a joint inventor”). The ’500 patent names Jared Oehring and Brandon N. Hinderliter as inventors. Ex. 1001, code (72). The ’085 application names Joel N. Broussard, Jeff McPherson, and Robert Kurtz as inventors. Ex. 1004, code (72). We have reviewed the ’085 application and determine that the ’085 applications fails to include sufficient written description as required by 35 U.S.C. § 120 for the following limitations of independent claims 1 and 14: “at least two switch gear units” (Ex. 1001, 15:44, claim 1; id. at 16:63, claim 14); and “tie breaker electrically coupled between each of the at least two switchgear units” (id. at 15:48–49, claim 1; id. at 16:66– 67). See generally Ex. 1005. Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded that the effective filing date of the ’500 patent is April 15, 2016.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,893,500 - PTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2021-01238 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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) (2018). A decision to institute may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018). If the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) 64 (Nov. 2019) (“The Board will not institute on fewer than all claims or all challenges in a petition.”);1 see also AC Techs. S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 912 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f the Board institutes an IPR, it must . . . address all grounds of unpatentability raised by the petitioner.”).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“This case is unlike other situations in which the Board has exercised its discretion to deny institution. Instead, Patent Owner asks us to deny institution because Petitioner has filed petitions challenging several of Patent Owner’s patents that are not asserted in district court litigation, arguing that the filing of this many petitions by one petitioner against one patent owner is contrary to the purposes of the AIA. Prelim. Resp. 12–23. Patent Owner’s arguments fail to persuade us to exercise our discretion to deny institution in this case. For each of Patent Owner’s patents, Petitioner has filed only one petition. We do not see this action as being contrary to the purposes of the AIA. See, e.g., Gen. Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (designated precedential) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011)) (noting that the AIA is “not to be used as [a] tool[] for harassment or a means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative attacks on the validity of a patent. Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.”). Moreover, it is undisputed that Patent Owner has asserted seven of its patents against Petitioner in district court litigation, and Petitioner expresses reasonable concern that Patent Owner may initiate additional litigation regarding its asyet unasserted patents. See Prelim. Reply 2. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Thus, under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In order to claim priority to an early-filed U.S. patent application, the earlier-filed application must disclose the invention claimed in the later-filed application “in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode)” and the later-filed application must “name[] an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Petitioner that, on this preliminary record, the ’882 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the ’689 application. Each of the independent claims of the ’882 patent recites a first switch gear positioned between a source of electricity and a transmission line and a second switch gear positioned between the transmission line and an electric motor. Ex. 1001, 8:55–57, 9:19–22. “Switchgear” is “[a] general term covering switching and interrupting devices and their combination with associated control, instrumentation, metering, protective and regulating devices.” Ex. 1029, 7. The ’689 application does not disclose a switch gear. See generally Ex. 1004.2 Nor does the ’689 application disclose any switching or interrupting devices or any transformers. See generally id. Therefore, we agree that, on this preliminary record, the ’689 application does not disclose the invention claimed in the ’882 patent in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Additionally, the ’689 application lists Joel N. Broussard, Jeff McPherson, and Robert Kurtz as inventors. Ex. 1004, code (72). The ’882 patent lists Jared Oehring and Brandon Neil Hinderliter as inventors. Ex. 1001, code (72); Ex. 1003, 808. Therefore, we agree that, on this 2 Exhibit 1004 is the publication of the ’689 application. Ex. 1004, code (21). preliminary record, the ’882 patent does not name an inventor or joint inventor of the ’689 application. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and on this preliminary record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’882 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the ’689 application.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,526,882 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–28 and all petition grounds, finding the Luharuka, API 674, and Karassik challenge more likely than not to prevail on claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to show that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“These arguments are not persuasive, however, because Patent Owner does not explain adequately how the disclosures of Oehring and Shampine are cumulative of the disclosure of Mu. In this case, the mere fact that 8 We note that Exhibit 2007 does not have ¶ 95 cited by Patent Owner. not mean necessarily that the references are cumulative of Mu. For instance, Petitioner relies on Mu for allegedly disclosing several claim limitations including “receiving a demand hydraulic horse power (HHP) signal,” “the first output power being in the range of approximately 70% to 100% of a maximum continuous power (MCP) level,” and “the second output power . . . being in the range of approximately 70% of the MCP level to approximately a maximum intermittent power (MIP) level.” Pet. 19–41. Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in Oehring or Shampine that are cumulative of these alleged teachings in Mu. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that either of Oehring or Shampine is cumulative of Mu. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s reliance on Mu does not involve the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office, and the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied with respect to Mu. And although Crowe is cited in the ’764 patent (see Ex. 1001, code (56)), Petitioner’s reliance on Crowe is minimal. The ground based on Mu and Crowe, thus, does not implicate § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelOther
“This dispute presents a factual issue best decided on a complete record. Accordingly, for purposes of the Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Lastly, on the current record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Marscher is not qualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 8. Mr. Marscher’s declaration and curriculum vitae show that he has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,815,764 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · PGR2021-00102 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–28 on all asserted grounds, finding a sufficient likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to show that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“These arguments are not persuasive, however, because Patent Owner does not explain adequately how the disclosures of Oehring and Shampine are cumulative of the disclosure of Mu. In this case, the mere fact that 8 We note that Exhibit 2007 does not have ¶ 95 cited by Patent Owner. not mean necessarily that the references are cumulative of Mu. For instance, Petitioner relies on Mu for allegedly disclosing several claim limitations including “receiving a demand hydraulic horse power (HHP) signal,” “the first output power being in a selected range of a maximum continuous power (MCP) level,” and “the second output power . . . being in a selected range of the MCP level to a maximum intermittent power (MIP) level.” Pet. 19–41. Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in Oehring or Shampine that are cumulative of these alleged teachings in Mu. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that either of Oehring or Shampine is cumulative of Mu. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s reliance on Mu does not involve the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office, and the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied with respect to Mu. And although Crowe is cited in the ’459 patent (see Ex. 1001, code (56)), Petitioner’s reliance on Crowe is minimal. The ground based on Mu and Crowe, thus, does not implicate § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelOther
“This dispute presents a factual issue best decided on a complete record. Accordingly, for purposes of the Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionTerm construed board ownOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained sufficiently what a “maximum power output value” means in the context of the ’459 patent. Nor has Petitioner explained sufficiently why “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value.” In contrast, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is supported by the Specification, although we do not agree with the last clause of the construction because the references to “typical” values do not assist in understanding the claim language. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily construe “maximum intermittent power” to mean “an elevated operating output level that the pump unit may operate intermittently throughout its operating life without excessive damage to the pump unit.”” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,907,459 - PTAB · Aug 12, 2021 · PGR2021-00026 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1–20 because Petitioner did not show error in the priority-support finding or improper burden shifting.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the underlying decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The ’611 provisional application discloses a first side (8) and a second side (9) of the beveled platform (5)/distal member wherein the first lateral blade (10) and the second lateral blade (11) are “along the sides of said beveled platform.” Ex. 1007, 38. As shown in the annotated figures below, the ’611 provisional application depicts right and left edges, which are the lines/borders between the sides (8, 9) and top of the distal member, wherein these edges extend towards the rearward end from the tip (6). Decision 39–40 (citing Prelim. Resp. 21, 45–46 (citing Ex. 1007, Figs. 1, 3)). Annotated Figures 1 and 3 include added lines and labels indicating the edges of the distal member. Petitioner’s argument appears to hinge on the contention that the beveled nature of the platform prevents it from being an edge. See Req. Reh’g 4, 6. However, Petitioner provides no persuasive arguments or evidence for this contention. We understand that Petitioner disagrees with the Board’s assessment, but simple disagreement is not effective to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“The ’611 provisional application discloses a first side (8) and a second side (9) of the beveled platform (5)/distal member wherein the first lateral blade (10) and the second lateral blade (11) are “along the sides of said beveled platform.” Ex. 1007, 38. As shown in the annotated figures below, the ’611 provisional application depicts right and left edges, which are the lines/borders between the sides (8, 9) and top of the distal member, wherein these edges extend towards the rearward end from the tip (6). Decision 39–40 (citing Prelim. Resp. 21, 45–46 (citing Ex. 1007, Figs. 1, 3)). Annotated Figures 1 and 3 include added lines and labels indicating the edges of the distal member.” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the claim terms raised by Petitioner were not limited to only showing support in the ’391 patent. In fact, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response discusses in detail where these claim terms are supported in the ’611 provisional application. See Prelim. Resp. 12–24, 39–41, 43–59. We also disagree with Petitioner’s contention that Patent Owner only provided “conclusory remarks” that the challenged claims were supported by priority applications other than the ’611 provisional. Req. Reh’g 11. For example, the Preliminary Response discusses how the challenged claim terms are supported by U.S. Patent No. 15/207,329 (“the ’329 application”). See Prelim. Resp. 24–27, 61, 63–64. Further, as noted in our Decision, Patent Owner also submitted a claim chart providing exemplary excerpts from the ’611 provisional, the ’329 application, and the ’391 patent to establish support for all elements of several exemplary challenged claims. See Decision 26 n.4 (citing Prelim. Resp., Appx. A). Petitioner has not demonstrated that we improperly shifted the burden to Petitioner. Instead, we concluded that the record before us supported Patent Owner’s contention that the non-disclaimed ’391 patent claims should receive priority to the ’611 provisional application. Decision 42.” slip op. at 8
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,786,391 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · PGR2020-00063 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–9, finding the § 101 arguments previously presented to the Office and the other grounds insufficient to show likely unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. The Board recently explained a two-part framework that the Board uses under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or 4 “ObjectLabel” (Ex. 1007, “ObjectLabel”). 5 US 2015/0153913 A1, issued June 4, 2015 (Ex. 1008, “Ballard”). substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). The Board further explained that “[i]f a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute.” Id. at 8–9. “If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 9. The Becton, Dickinson6 factors, which address discretion to deny when a Petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, are instructive. Id. (“[T]he Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” (Footnote omitted)).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(“the ’432 patent”). Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) filed a petition requesting post-grant review of claims 1–9 of the ’432 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). GREE, in turn, filed a preliminary response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). After considering the petition and the preliminary response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine the petition does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’432 patent is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Thus, we do not institute post-grant review of claims 1–9 of the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“‘“the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.’” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Rather, ‘the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had ‘possession’ of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” Id. (citing Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)).” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“information.” Id. at 7:34–41. In particular, Ross explains that “[t]he user may interact with the secondary, tertiary, etc., virtual reality content and then return his view back to the movie wherein the movie has been adjusted to reflect the user’s interaction with the secondary, tertiary, etc., virtual reality content.” Id. at 7:41–45. Ross explains further that “while a user views primary virtual reality content, system 10 may be configured to display a ‘pop-up’ cue indicating that additional virtual reality content (e.g., additional characters) is available in a different (e.g., secondary, tertiary, etc.) content area.” Id. at 7:46–50. Thus, we understand Ross to disclose a system wherein a user can turn their gaze from a primary area to a secondary, tertiary, etc., area to view content related to the content in the primary area. See Ross, 7:21–33 (“Responsive to the user turning his view from the primary virtual reality content . . . a sensory cue comprising . . . secondary, tertiary, etc., . . . may be displayed to the user.”). Further, we understand Ross to disclose a system wherein the user’s focus on an item in the primary area may activate a “popup” cue in the primary area directing the user to additional virtual reality content in a secondary, tertiary, etc., area. See id. at 7:46–50 (“[W]hile a user views primary virtual reality content, system 10 may be configured to display a ‘pop-up’ cue indicating that additional virtual reality content . . . is available in a different (e.g., secondary, tertiary, etc.) content area.”). We do not, however, understand Ross’ “pop-up” cue to be activated in a secondary, tertiary, etc. area based on the user’s gaze position moving to the second area from the first area as required by claims 1, 8, and 9. See id. Therefore, because Ross describes displaying a “pop-up” cue while a user is viewing primary virtual reality content (see Ross, 7:46–50), Petitioner does not show persuasively that Ross discloses that “a gaze position moving to the second area from the first area” is an “information providing condition.” Furthermore, Petitioner’s cited testimonial evidence does not explain sufficiently how Ross discloses the recited “information providing condition.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 73. For the reasons above, Petitioner does not show adequately that Ross discloses an “information providing condition [that] is a condition of a gaze position moving to the second area from the first area.”” slip op. at 18
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,406,432 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 2, 2020 · PGR2019-00018 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or inventive concept; the § 112(b) and § 112(d) challenges were not shown.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'IneligibleStep1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that “the holding in In re Smith does not require that the claims be directed to rules for playing a ‘particular’ game.” Pet. Reply 5. Rather, the Federal Circuit held that “claims, describing a set of rules for a game, are drawn to an abstract idea.” In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 819. Notably, the Federal Circuit did not require that such rules only be applicable to a particular game. Id. Further, we agree that the claims at issue are similar to those in Planet Bingo as explained by Petitioner in its Reply. See Pet. Reply 6–8; see also Ex. 1009, 11.” slip op. at 14
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Pet. Reply 9. The claimed “input face” is simply not claimed in sufficient detail to require the type of specific user interface found to transform the claims into a practical application in Core Wireless, DDR Holdings, and other similar cases. Rather, as admitted by Patent Owner’s expert, the claims recite a generic “input face.” See Ex. 1005, 52:16–20, 78:22–79:1, 79:13–18, 108:11–109:8.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Petition, Petitioner does not proffer a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Pet. In its Response, Patent Owner does not provide a definition either. See generally PO Resp. In its Reply, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Shamos, that a person of ordinary skill in the art has “two years of experience implementing interactive software having touchscreen user interfaces.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 38). In its Sur-Reply. Patent Owner essentially agrees with Petitioner’s definition, but asserts that this definition does not require such a person to have personally written code for touchscreen user interfaces. See PO Sur-Reply 5. Having reviewed the entire record in this proceeding, we agree with both Petitioner and Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “two years of experience implementing interactive software having touchscreen user interfaces” as this is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the ’799 patent and evidence of record. Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-Reply 5. We further agree with Patent Owner that such a person need not have personally written code for such implementation for the same reasons.” slip op. at 37
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“We find unpersuasive Petitioner’s contentions regarding the claim terms “direction” and “direction operation,” as well as the limitation “moving . . . one or more of the plurality of associated objects as a group.” Dec. 24. Specifically, we credit Dr. Shamos’s testimony that the terms “direction” and “direction operation” is not indefinite and that, although the limitation “moving . . . one or more of the plurality of associated objects as a group” may be broad, it is not indefinite. Id. Having considered the entire record in this proceeding, Petitioner has not demonstrated that claims 1–20 are indefinite. 4. Conclusion Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1–20 fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,891,799 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,891,799 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2019 · PGR2018-00061 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1–7 and 9–20 not shown unpatentable under §§ 101, 112(a), or 112(b), because Petitioner did not meet its burden on any ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“would possess at least an associate degree in the field of computer science (or a related academic field) and at least two additional years of practical (e.g., work) experience in the field of video game programming and development.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 27). Patent Owner alternatively contends that, if the person of ordinary skill in the art did not have a formal degree, then such a person “would have at least four years of practical (e.g., work) experience in the field of video game programming and development, or an equivalent field of study” and “would have training or familiarity with computer processing technology, namely systems for processing the progress of a video game, including the generation of game screens, and the tracking and displaying of in-game player status information.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 27). Petitioner does not present any arguments regarding level of ordinary skill. See generally Pet.; Pet. Reply. We find Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill credible based on the Specification and apply that level of skill to our analysis of the parties’ disputes. We, thus, adopt Patent Owner’s unchallenged, asserted level of ordinary skill quoted above. slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner, on the other hand, describes how the Specification of the ’793 patent, with supporting declarant testimony, provides adequate written description for the disputed limitations. PO Resp. 69–71 (citing Pet. 53–54; Ex. 1001, 4:32–34; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 89–105). The Specification states that “a screen information generator that generates information relating to a game screen based on an instruction received by the instruction receiving device.” Ex. 1001, 4:32–34. Patent Owner also presents declarant testimony that explains the quoted portion of the Specification and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood from the Specification that it provides adequate written description support for the disputed recitations. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 89–105 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:1–7, 3:9–12, 3:46–53, 4:32–34, 4:37–41, 4:47–49, 7:24–58, 8:9–11, 8:18–35, 8:42–45, 8:65–67, 11:5–6, Figs. 2A, 2B). We credit Patent Owner’s declarant testimony because the relied upon portions of the Specification support it.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“claims 1, 11, and 17 are limiting. Turning to the language of the claims, claim 1 recites “generating information relating to a game screen based on a received instruction [(‘the generating step’)]; and outputting information relating to the generated game screen to a user terminal at a predetermined time [(‘the outputting step’)].” Ex. 1001, 13:57–60. Claim 1’s wherein clause recites, inter alia, that “the second game screen includes latest state information at a time when receiving a first instruction which is an instruction to update the state information.” Because of the logical link between the “received instruction” in the generating step and the “when receiving a first instruction” in the wherein clause, we determine that the wherein clause must relate to the generating step, not the outputting step, as asserted by Petitioner. Claim 11 also recites “a screen information generation step in which a screen information generator . . . generates information relating to a game screen based on the instruction received” and its wherein clause expressly states “in the screen information generation step.” Ex. 1001, 14:66–15:2, 15:9. Similarly, claim 17 recites “a screen information generator that generates information relating to a game screen based on an instruction received” and expressly states “wherein the screen information generator generates information.” Id. at 16:13–15, 16:19. We, thus, determine that the claims support Patent Owner’s contention that the wherein clauses refer to recitations regarding generating information relating to a game screen based on received instruction. Turning to the Specification, we find that it describes the claimed invention as “capable of reducing the influence of a communication state or performance of hardware by generating a game screen with information to be displayed on the game screen as the latest information at the timing when an instruction to update is received.” Ex. 1001, 1:51–55 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 2004 ¶ 49 (testifying as to why the Specification describes a technological improvement). The wherein clauses of the independent claims reiterate this part of the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 13:61–67, 15:9–17, 16:19–27. We, thus, find that the Specification supports our determination that the wherein clauses refer to recitations regarding generating information relating to a game screen based on received instruction and are limiting.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“To resolve the parties’ dispute, we determine that an express interpretation for any of these terms or any other claim term is not necessary. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 9,700,793 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,700,793 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 26, 2019 · PGR2018-00050 · APJ Carl M Defranco · PGR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–10 not unpatentable under § 101, § 112(a), or § 112(b), finding the claims patent eligible and rejecting the written-description and indefiniteness challenges.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Neither Supercell nor GREE proposes a construction for any particular claim term. See Pet. 20–26; PO Resp. 6. We determine that no express construction of the claim terms is necessary for purposes of this decision, with one exception. We note that the Specification of the ’886 patent describes the claimed “terminal attribute” as follows: “Examples of the attribute information may include the OS version, the browser type, the terminal type, the communication circumstance, and the like.” Ex. 1001, 11:33–35. In that regard, the Specification also explains a communication circumstance as follows: “For example, in a case where an information processing speed or a communication speed in the user terminal . . . is high, the number of rounds is set to be large.” Id. at 11:20–23. As such, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “terminal attribute” encompasses at least the examples listed in the Specification and should be read accordingly.3” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with GREE that the claims are drawn to a specific technological improvement in the transmission of online game content by using a terminal attribute to improve the efficiency and functionality of transmitting multiple rounds of an online game to a user terminal, and that this improvement is not an abstract idea.7 Although, as Supercell argues, the recited function of “transmitting game view data” may be result-oriented (see Pet. 33–37; Reply 4–6), the claims nonetheless recite a specific technique for achieving that result-oriented function—identifying a terminal attribute of the user terminal and determining the predetermined number based on the terminal attribute. That particular technique, as made clear by the ’886 patent, solves a specific technological problem with conventional online game systems—long wait times and interruptions in the transmission of multiple rounds of the game. See Ex. 1001, 1:46–54 (describing the problem with conventional online game systems). So, rather than reciting just result-oriented functions, the clear focus” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“As explained by GREE’s expert, a skilled artisan would have known from that description how to determine the predetermined number of rounds using a terminal attribute table. See Ex. 1007, 57:20–62:10, 82:14–23, 87:7– 90:22. That expert testimony, which we find persuasive, is unrebutted and stands in direct contrast to unsupported attorney argument from Supercell. See Pet. 58–61; Reply 19–21. Thus, we determine that Supercell has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description support.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“Pet. 64–65; Reply 22–23. But aside from that conclusory assertion, Supercell’s Petition simply poses a series of rhetorical questions without further analysis or evidentiary support. See Pet. 65–66. GREE, on the other hand, offers expert testimony as to why the meaning of the claimed “determining” limitation is clear not only from the claim language itself but also in light of the Specification. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40– 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:20–41). We find that testimony persuasive. We also find persuasive GREE’s reasoning in response to each of the rhetorical questions raised by Supercell, even though it was under no obligation to do so. PO Resp. 47–49; Sur-Reply 17–19. And given the lack of argument, not to mention evidentiary support, in the Petition as to the purported indefiniteness of the challenged claims, we are not persuaded that Supercell has carried its burden of showing that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 9,675,886 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 9,675,886 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 23, 2019 · PGR2018-00055 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101; the Board denied the motion to amend because substitute claims 13–24 are also patent ineligible.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“claims provide more detail than the original claims, we do not agree that in this instance such detail renders the proposed substitute claims patent eligible. As explained above in Part II.B.2.a, the original claims are directed to a judicial exception (namely a certain method of organizing human activity), which is patent ineligible. The proposed substitute claims do not remedy this deficiency in the original claims. Rather, the proposed substitute claims merely add more detail to the ineligible subject matter. For example, substitute claim 13 recites “controlling . . . an effect of an attack . . . according to . . . a plurality of attack values, each of the plurality of attack values assigned to each attack of the number of attacks within the predetermined time by any characters in the group.” PO MTA 27. This recitation clearly provides more detail than was provided in original claim 1; however, the additional detail specifies how the video game is conducted (i.e., the rules to be followed) as opposed to a technological improvement. In other words the proposed substitute claims, like the original claims, recite following rules (specifically, rules for a battle game), which is a certain method of organizing human activity that has been found to be patent ineligible. Guidance at 52. For this reason, and the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.b regarding the original claims, we determine that the proposed substitute claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea). We also determine that the proposed substitute claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application for the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.c and that the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea do not recite an inventive concept for the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.d. Accordingly, we find that substitute claims 13–24 are not patent eligible.” slip op. at 52
- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct because once again Patent Owner relies on the limitations that are encompassed by the judicial exception for the inventive concept. Our analysis under step 2B, like our analysis above under step 2A prong 2, looks to the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (“For example the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.”). Patent Owner identifies no additional elements beyond the judicial exception as providing an inventive concept and does not argue that the additional elements beyond that judicial exception are not well-known, routine, and conventional. For these reasons, we determine that claims 1–12 do not provide an inventive concept.” slip op. at 27
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Even if Patent Owner’s assertions that the limitations of claim 1 are analogous to the identified limitations in Examples 37 and 38 of the Guidance and do not recite mathematical concepts, this is not dispositive on the issue of whether claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The Guidance identifies “following rules” such as “rules for conducting a wagering game” as one method of organizing human activity that is patent ineligible. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (citing In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 818). The preamble to claim 1 recites “[a] method for providing a battle game to each of a plurality of client devices via a network.” Ex. 1001, 7:54– 55. The preamble of Example 37 recites “[a] method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system” and the preamble of Example 38 recites “[a] method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog audio mixer.” USPTO, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas 1 (Jan. 7, 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_ 20190107.pdf. Neither of the example claims has anything to do with a method of providing a battle game or following rules, and thus, cannot demonstrate by analogy that claim 1 is patent eligible.” slip op. at 22
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct because once again Patent Owner relies on the limitations that are encompassed by the judicial exception for the inventive concept. Our analysis under step 2B, like our analysis above under step 2A prong 2, looks to the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (“For example the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.”). Patent Owner identifies no additional elements beyond the judicial exception as providing an inventive concept and does not argue that the additional elements beyond that judicial exception are not well-known, routine, and conventional. For these reasons, we determine that claims 1–12 do not provide an inventive concept. e. Conclusion re Subject Matter Eligibility For the reasons set forth in Parts II.B.2.a–d, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–12 are not subject matter eligible.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,687,744 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,687,744
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.