- Unified Patents Inc. v. KCG Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01536 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious; the revised motion to amend is denied because proposed substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable as obvious or indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner. Proposed substitute claim 24 recites “the handheld device” without antecedent basis. This lack of antecedent basis renders proposed substitute claim 24 indefinite, as we noted in our Preliminary Guidance. Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25; Prelim. Guidance 8 (“Proposed substitute claim 24 also recites ‘the handheld device’ and also suffers from the lack of antecedent basis). Despite having the opportunity to correct its error and amend proposed substitute dependent claim 24 when independent claim 14 was amended to remove the recitation of “a handheld device,” Patent Owner did not do so in its Contingent Revised Motion to Amend. RMTA 31. Proposed substitute claim 24 is indefinite because the claim “fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)13; see MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020). This is because “the handheld device” is only recited in proposed substitute claim 24, and the proposed substitute claim fails to inform one skilled in the art the scope of invention related to synchronizing “data on the handheld device” “in the virtual smart phone.” Because proposed substitute claims 25 and 26 depend from proposed substitute claim 24, we similarly agree with Petitioner that claims 25 and 26 also are indefinite for lacking an antecedent basis for the term “handheld device.” Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 24–26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.” slip op. at 40
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Absent clear reliance on the preamble in the prosecution history, or in situations where it is necessary to provide antecedent basis for the body of the claim, the preamble generally is not limiting.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A claim preamble also is limiting if the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 182 F.3d at 1305. We disagree with Patent Owner. Specifically, we do not agree that limitations in the body of the claims require the preamble to serve as an antecedent basis nor do they derive essential structure from the preamble. Rather, all of the elements recited in the body of claim 1 comprise a “virtual smart phone.” That is, we do not discern, and Patent Owner fails to persuasively point us to, any structure imparted by the preamble’s recitation of a “virtual smart phone.” See Pet. Reply 1–2. We similarly do not agree that the without the term “virtual smart phone” there would be no understanding of the “emulating” or “handheld device” limitations. Rather, the recited “software application executing on the processor” limitation provides the structure and meaning for the “emulating” of the “handheld device” features. Furthermore, we agree with the Petitioner that there is no evidence in the record that the prosecution history requires that the preamble is limiting, and the claims were distinguished during prosecution based on the recitation of a “virtual” smart phone. Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting. slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“on the process to . . . emulate features of a handheld device.” Ex. 1001, 12:58–60 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the term “‘emulate’ has a meaning in the art that is common and understood to mean ‘to imitate.’” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner provides a dictionary definition to support its contention. Ex. 2004 (defining “emulate” as “to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass”). Patent Owner contends the use of “emulate” in claim 1 comports with its commonly understood meaning as “to imitate,” as does the use of the term “emulate” in the written description. Pet. 18–20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:3, 2:6–3:5, 12:54–13:2 (claim 1)). Petitioner argues that the term “emulate” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not contest Patent Owner’s construction of the term “emulate” as “to imitate.” Pet. 6–7; Pet. Reply 7. Petitioner, however, contests Patent Owner’s application of that construction to the asserted prior art. Pet. Reply 4–7 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner specifically argues that Patent Owner implies that “(1) the imitation must be an exact duplicate in display and manner of input . . . or (2) the imitation relates only to the display and touch screen aspects.” Pet. Reply 4–5. In support of its position that Patent Owner’s interpretation of “to imitate” improperly narrows the meaning of “emulate,” Petitioner contends the written description discloses “less than full replication as emulation” and “controlling the handheld device th[r]ough control of a projected image using a variety of control input mechanisms provides emulation.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:2–5, 3:57–61, 4:63–66, 6:24–42). Petitioner also notes that the dictionary definition Patent Owner proffered indicates that an exact duplication is not required. Pet. Reply 7 (“The complete definition of emulate [as] ‘to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass.’ Ex. 1004, 3”). We conclude that a preponderance of evidence supports the construction of the term “emulate” to mean “to imitate,” without any further restriction such as exact duplication or only display or touch screen aspects. Accordingly, we construe the term “emulate” as “to imitate.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at or before the priority date of the ’955 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in the field of automotive information systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39); Ex. 1034 ¶ 14 (Petitioner’s expert reiterating the same level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner does not propose an ordinary level of skill in the art. We agree with and adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,955 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,955 - Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00637 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious; Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support and indefiniteness.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“admitted that the patented features of voice and revoiced text are responsible for ‘giv[ing] the phone back to folks with hearing loss.’” PO Resp. 48 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner is offering the statement for the truth that voice and re-voiced text gives the phone back to folks with hearing loss. Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Puzey was discussing the existence of features in his company’s product rather than features in Patent Owner’s product does not change that his statement is offered as proof regarding an alleged long-felt need for the features. Accordingly, his testimony is hearsay. slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“art is telecommunication systems. Thus, a [POSA] is a person familiar with at least that technology by way of background and/or experience.” CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 13 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015); see also CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00780, Paper 35, 9 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015) (reaffirming our finding in IPR2013- 00549). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree” with that definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that, “without waiving the foregoing objection and reserving all rights,” states that it will “appl[y]” our prior definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 3. By not setting forth arguments advocating a particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and by applying our prior definition, Patent Owner has waived arguments for any other definition. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as expressed by its declarant, Mr. Occhiogrosso. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 26–27. This person typically has “a bachelor’s degree” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“understand a “communication link,” as claimed, to refer to the “communication line” described in the specification. In particular, the link is “intended not only to apply to a traditional land-line . . . but also to all equivalents that offer similar functionality.” Id. at 8:60–63. A link could be “a portion of the bandwidth” of a particular connection, such that a single mode of connection (e.g., IP) could carry out two types of communication (voice and text), with each type corresponding to a different “communication link.” See id. at 8:44–47, 8:63–65. For example, as explained in the ’838 patent, “[e]ach of the telephone lines could be . . . a portion of the bandwidth of an ISDN or DSL service.” Id. at 8:53–65. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “communication link” as “any communication session, protocol, link, connection, or path distinguishable from [another] communication link[].”” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“3. Combination of References As we discussed above, Petitioner’s combination takes the two-line” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,908,838 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,908,838 - SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 17, 2015 · IPR2014-00414 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under the instituted §103 grounds because Petitioner proved unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Seventh, having reviewed my financial disclosure, Patent Owner is well aware that even if Microsoft were a party to these proceedings, the de minimis value of stock I own in Microsoft, is far below the $15,000 recusal threshold. 5 C.F.R. § 2640.202(a). Patent Owner’s allegations of a financial conflict of interest in this proceeding are unjustified and not supported by any evidence. Finally, after obtaining my financial disclosure, it appears that Patent Owner arranged to publish it, along with a threatening photo of me superimposed on a target with a skull and crossbones, on an Internet site of uncertain ownership and operation. See, Paper 21, 2 (describing public release of this information on November 26, 2014). These actions suggest an attempt to intimidate. In any case, Patent Owner’s conduct has not influenced and will not influence the outcome of any proceeding before us. Thus, to the extent that Patent Owner has supplemented her Motion to Recuse, Patent Owner’s Motion is DENIED.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“To provide support for a negative claim limitation, the written description must describe, at a minimum, a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As discussed above, Petitioner has demonstrated that the specification essentially is silent on excluding CGI to connect to the value 10 Patent Owner does not cite a specific page, but appears to be referring to page 6 of Ex. 2004). added service provided by the Web merchant. Patent Owner has not rebutted Petitioner’s contentions. Thus, the earliest written description of the limitation “to connect in real time to the value-added network service of the Web merchant without executing Common Gateway Interface (CGI) scripts” is in the claims of the application for the ’894 Patent. For the reasons discussed above, the claimed subject matter in the ’894 Patent is entitled to a priority date of Nov. 30, 2009. See X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[E]ntitlement to priority is decided on a claim-by-claim basis, and various claims may be entitled to different priority dates.”).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“CONCLUSION Patent Owner does not respond specifically to the grounds on which we instituted this inter partes review. Having reviewed the Patent Owner Response and Petitioner Reply, and in consideration of the matters discussed above and in the Decision to Institute, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable for the reasons stated in our Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,346,894 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,346,894 - Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 3, 2015 · IPR2013-00545 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Ryan and Alshawi because their combined teachings render the claimed relay system obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“of the specification of the patent in which it appears. Thus, we will not limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to require training to the voice of only one particular call assistant, because the claim language encompasses the invention as disclosed in the Specification—software trained to a voice pattern of a call assistant. Ex. 1001, 2:41-49 (“Summary of the Invention”). Nor will we limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to a particular time in which the training must occur or to a particular manner of training that is not found in the claims nor the specification. Accordingly, “trained to the voice of the call assistant” does not preclude voice recognition software that is designed or built in advance of implementation at the source code level to the voice pattern of a call assistant. Nor is “trained to the voice of the call assistant” limited to training to the voice of one and only one call assistant.” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to an earlier filing date, the earlier application must satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See 35 U.S.C. § 120; In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ‘ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.’” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336,1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The written description requirement is met if the specification shows that the inventor has invented what is claimed—that is, the inventor had possession of it. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive at the outset because, to testify as an expert under FRE 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, 550 F.3d at 1363-64; SEB, 594 F.3d at 1372-73; Mytee, 439 Fed. App’x at 886–87. Patent Owner’s arguments are also unpersuasive because they attempt to constrict the “pertinent art,” i.e., the pertinent technology, to a particular subset of individuals who use the pertinent technology, rather than the pertinent technology itself. See Pet. Opp. to Mot. to Exc. 4-5 (arguing that the problems in the pertinent art are not “uniquely related” to the deaf and hard-of-hearing). We agree with Petitioner that the relevant field is telecommunication technologies. See Pet. Opp. to Mot. to Exc. 7 (“Mr. Occhiogrosso’s qualifications should be analyzed with respect to the pertinent art of telecommunication technologies in which an intermediary facilitates voice-to-text transcription.”). The ’346 patent states that the “present invention relates to the general field of telephone communications.” Ex. 1001, 1:16- 17. Patent Owner correctly indicates that the ’346 patent focuses on a particular application of that technology: people who need assistance in using telecommunications devices. PO Mot. to Exc. Occhiogrosso 4 (citing” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 6,594,346 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,594,346 - SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 18, 2014 · CBM2013-00013 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 11 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103, and claims 1–6 and 11 are unpatentable under § 112, second paragraph.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Under Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 901(b)(1) a proponent may authenticate evidence through testimony that the evidence is what it is claimed to be. In Loraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, (D. Md. 2007), the court noted that a witness authenticating electronic evidence must “provide factual specificity about the process by which the electronically stored information is created, acquired, maintained, and preserved without alteration or change, or the process by which it is produced if the result of a system or process that does so.” Id. at 545. The inventor’s statements do not meet these criteria. However, under FRE 901(b)(4) a party may authenticate evidence using circumstantial evidence in conjunction with the appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the evidence. Although Patent Owner has not provided evidence such as hash values or metadata (see Lorraine at 547), the contents and substance of the documents indicate that they are what they purport to be. Given their technical nature of the documents, this panel can assign them appropriate weight.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As discussed further in this decision, based on Patent Owner’s contentions and the language of the Specification, we conclude that the term “routed transactional data structure” fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty and is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 , second paragraph. See, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig, Insts., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129–30 (2014) . However, to the extent that the claim can be construed in order to analyze its relationship to the prior art in this proceeding and whether the claim recites patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we have reconsidered our use of the expression “switching a user” in the construction we applied in our Decision to Institute. Dec. to Inst. 15-16. Claim 1 recites that the “routed transactional data structure” is specific to a POSvc application, which is a software program that facilitates execution of transactions requested by a user. Upon reconsideration, we conclude that “utilizing a routed transaction data structure” encompasses using a data structure that facilitates switching the processing of information associated with a user selected transactional application that provides immediate processing.” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“In our Decision to Institute, we noted that “object routing” requires the use of individual networked objects to route a user from a selected transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider. In contrast, the limitation “routed transactional data structure,” does not impose a meaningful limit on the scope of claims 1–3 and 11 because it does not play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed. See SiRF Tech. Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm., 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). For example, as explained below in our 35 U.S.C. § 112 , second paragraph analysis, the Specification does not describe clearly how a data structure is transactional, as opposed to non-transactional, or routed, as opposed to non-routed. As discussed above, to the extent that “utilizing a routed transactional data structure that is both complete and non-deferred,” can be construed, we have interpreted it to mean using a data structure that facilitates switching the processing of information associated with a user– selected a transactional application that provides immediate processing. Switching the processing of information from one resource to another, such as from one program or data base to another, is a well-known abstract concept that is not limited to any particular technical approach, such as object routing, as recited in claim 4. The remaining limitations in claim 1 do not contribute any patent– eligible subject matter. The service network atop the Web, which we have construed to mean a network on which services other than underlying network communications services are provided over the Web, is an abstract concept under which customers and service providers communicate over a network so that the service provider can service the customer, in this case to allow the user to transfer funds between checking and savings accounts. This does not impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. See SiRF Tech, 601 F.3d at 1333. Thus, we conclude that claim 1 does not recite patent–eligible subject matter.” slip op. at 16
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“The remaining limitations in claim 1 do not contribute any patent– eligible subject matter. The service network atop the Web, which we have construed to mean a network on which services other than underlying network communications services are provided over the Web, is an abstract concept under which customers and service providers communicate over a network so that the service provider can service the customer, in this case to allow the user to transfer funds between checking and savings accounts. This does not impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. See SiRF Tech, 601 F.3d at 1333. Thus, we conclude that claim 1 does not recite patent–eligible subject matter. Claims 2, 3, and 11 do not add limitations that contribute to patent eligibility. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1–3 and 11 do not recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 8,037,158 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,037,158
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.