- Spotify USA Inc. v. Manuel TijerinoInstitutedPTAB · Dec 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01280 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Laut, Kincaid, and Bongiovi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons given below we determine the information presented in the Petition demonstrates there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’925 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundOther
“The Board’s Preliminary Analysis — Rationale to Combine Kincaid with Laut At this stage of the proceeding, based on the express disclosures of Kincaid and Laut, we are persuaded Petitioner’s rationale is sufficient to show that a “POSITA would seek to ensure consistent loudness across tracks to maximize customer satisfaction and would thus be motivated to combine Kincaid with Laut in order to correct these problems.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). Moreover, we credit Mr. Rosenblatt’s testimony that the “POSITA’s motivation would have been at least partially financial: improving the listeners’ experiences could increase demand for the jukebox, leading to” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’925 patent “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree and a Masters [sic] degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as one to two years of academic or industry experience in computer-based systems for digital audio distribution and playback, or comparable industry experience.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Petitioner further asserts that the ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been knowledgeable about audio signal processing techniques, such as gain normalization and dynamic range compression, and software engineering.” Id. At this stage, Patent Owner does not specifically address the level of skill of the ordinary artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’925 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner incorrectly interprets the issued ’925 patent claim terms under BRI. Prelim. Resp. 2. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to consider Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for claim 1 under the legally incorrect broadest reasonable interpretation standard, which is only applicable during prosecution before a patent examiner. As emphasized above, in interpreting the claims of the ’925 patent, we “us[e] the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2023). We further emphasize that we construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on our review of the current record, we determine that no express construction of any term is necessary to resolve this case for purposes of institution. We leave it to the parties to further develop during under the proper Phillips standard applied to IPR proceedings. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,146,925 - Forte Biosciences, Inc. v. University Of MassachusettsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · PGR2023-00014 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable for lack of written description and enablement under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the § 103 challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition, except to modify the level such that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with well-known inhibitors of IL-15 and IL-15R as described in the ’505 patent and recognized in the art as of April 2017.” Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). We adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art with Patent Owner’s proposed modification because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’505 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“this stage of the proceeding and that all terms are to given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 23; Resp. 38. We agree. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, we determine that no claim construction is necessary.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Finally, we are reminded that “a sufficient description of the genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. “[F]unctional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Here, however, the challenged claims are directed to methods using a wide range of different types of compounds purported to be “IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors” that are not part of a known or readily identifiable class, do not target the same biological pathway, do not have any common structural features, and do not appear to always function as inhibitors. See Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1575–77, 1579; Ex. 1046, 189:4–19, 191:15–192:15, 193:18–196:22, 198:21–199:21, 197:12–198:19, 200:1–8, 207:11–14, 203:3–10, 207:15–21, 236:12–24; Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 19–23, 56, 63–64, 80–85. Therefore, we find there is neither a representative number of species disclosed, nor a sufficient” slip op. at 21
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“598 U.S. at 610. A “specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention. What is reasonable in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art.” Id. at 613. But the person of ordinary skill in the art cannot be left with merely “a hunting license” or obligated to engage in “painstaking experimentation” or “trial and error” to “see what works.” Id. at 614. Patent Owner argues that “the IL-15/IL-15R inhibitors disclosed in the specification were known in the art and “share the common ‘general quality’ of inhibiting a pathway known to be relevant to and having ‘particular fitness for the particular purposes’ of (id.) treating certain autoimmune diseases by blocking IL-15 signaling.” Sur-reply 14 (citing Ex. 1011, 22; Ex. 2013, 3; Ex. 2017, Abstr.; Ex. 2024, 17; Ex. 2025, 2–3, 6; Ex. 2027, 4; Ex. 2028, 9; Ex. 2029, 4; Ex. 2031, 23; Ex. 2118, 53:22–54:9; Ex. 1018, 1; Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 52–63, 80–83, 130; Ex. 1046, 231:20–25). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing, however, because the record shows that different IL-15-specific inhibitors may operate in different ways that may result in differential effects, some of which may not include inhibition at all. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶21, 23, 40, 71; Ex. 1018, Abstr., 1576, 1579; Ex. 2013, 4:1– 8; Ex. 2014, 4:9–15; Ex. 2015 ¶ 22; Ex. 2025, 4:34–5:2; Ex. 1046, 166:21– 24, 168:25–169:5, 207:23–209:22, 210:4–17, 210:24–211:6; Ex. 1011, 1:67–2:4; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 116, 134. Thus, we find that the record supports Drs. Abbas and Plott’s testimony, which we credit, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to hunt down and test every compound through painstaking Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–90, 92; Ex. 1047 ¶ 53 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that the “specification of the ’505 patent is essentially a black box (so far as which aspects of IL-15 signaling it inhibits and how it operates), leaving the reader to guess through trial and error which molecules might operate similarly to ChMBC7 and which do not.”); Ex. 1004 ¶ 61 (Dr. Plott’s testimony that “from the perspective of a clinician, the amount of experimentation required would be extremely burdensome and success would be speculative.”); Ex. 2007, 93:16–97:25, 38:208; Ex. 1046, 234:20–236:11. This is due to the fact that the claims (without limit) encompass any inhibition of any one of the various types of IL-15 signaling and various versions of the receptor, and even implicate other compounds that act on different targets but which inhibit the IL-15 signaling pathway. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 53, 68; Ex. 2005 ¶ 71; Ex. 1046, 254:4–255:11, 158:12–160:20. The evidence has shown that IL-15/IL-15R inhibition is complicated and unpredictable, with some inhibitors also capable of enhancing forms of IL-15 signaling rather than preventing it. See Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 10, 25–26, 53; Ex. 2013, 2:10–18; Ex. 2014, 2:12–20; Ex. 2015 ¶ 3; Ex. 2025, 2:10–18; Ex. 2078, 267.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 11,278,505 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,278,505 - PTAB · Apr 26, 2022 · PGR2022-00007 · APJ Thu A Dang · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–19 based on likely lack of written description and obviousness over Ellison and Muir, with Al-Salqan or Searle added for certain claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Section 324(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that 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.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) as well as the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, for the reasons below, we determine that the information in the Petition satisfies the threshold provided in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) and we institute this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). In other words, where the written description fails to disclose an element explicitly, “the applicant must show that any absent text is necessarily comprehended in the description provided and would have been so understood at the time the patent application was filed.” Id. at 1354–55 (emphases added). At this stage of the proceeding, we do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that authentication software has a “private key” that forms an “integral part of the authentication software component and/or is embedded therein” (Prelim. Resp. 13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:39–40)), in view of the cited section in the Detailed Description describing the authentication software as comprising the unique serial number, the unique software ID and/or a private encryption key, but only the unique serial number or the unique software ID is embedded therein. See Ex. 1001, 5:39–49. That is, we are unpersuaded at this stage of the proceeding that the person of ordinary skill in the art will directly and unambiguously deduce from the ’773 application as filed that the “private encryption key” is embedded in the authentication software, as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 13. Instead, we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that the ’480 patent (i.e., the ’773 application) merely teaches storing the digital signing algorithm in a secure part of the BIOS 44 but is silent as to storage of the private key. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:27–34, 13:31–44; Ex. 1003). As Petitioner contends, the” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“The Specification of the ’480 patent discloses secure area 62 only accessible to BIOS 44, comprising applications and storage locations not reported to operating system 48 (Ex. 1001, 8:62–9:1), wherein, as shown in Figure 3, secure area 62 comprises secure storage location 60, recovery application 56, and authentication software 54. Id. at 9:7–11. That is, the Specification shows “secure memory inaccessible to said operating system” as a location that holds software not accessible to operating system 48. Id. Nothing in the Specification, or the general knowledge in the art, limits “secure memory inaccessible to said operating system” to Ellison’s “isolated storage area 70,” or precludes Ellison’s “secure platform 200,” as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. In fact, nothing in the Specification or the general knowledge in the art limits the “storage” to any amount of time in the secure memory. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s apparent position that software that is loaded into a secure location of execution is not software that is “stored” in a “secure memory” location. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. In view of the Specification and the general knowledge in the art, we determine that the term “stored in said secure memory inaccessible to said operating system” encompasses being held in any secure location that is determination here is preliminary, and the parties are invited to address this claim construction issue at trial, if so desired.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“ii. “providing a private key in a memory of said electronic device, said memory being a secure part of a Basic In Out System or any other secure location in said electronic device, which private key is inaccessible to a user of said electronic device, wherein the private key is encrypted when the private key is stored in said memory” (claim 1) Petitioner contends that Ellison’s “isolated execution regions ‘is accessible only to elements of the operating system and processor operating in isolated execution mode,’” and that “isolated mode applets 461 to 46K and their data are tamper-resistant and monitor-resistant from all software attacks from other applets and OS 12.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1006, 4:1–22). According to Petitioner, “[a] user is not an element of the operating system and processor operating in isolated execution mode, and therefore 6 The issue of whether the preamble is limiting need not be resolved at this stage of the proceeding because, regardless of whether the preamble is limiting, Petitioner shows sufficiently for purposes of institution, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that the combination of Ellison and Muir teaches a method for performing an electronic transaction between first and second transaction parties, as recited in the preamble. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (noting that we need only construe “only those terms that . . . are in controversy”). Ex. 1003 ¶ 92). Petitioner then contends that Ellison discloses “a secure platform 200 that ‘includes the OS nub 16, the processor nub 18, a key generator 240, . . . , all operating within the isolated execution environment.’” Pet. 58 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:25–32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 95). Petitioner also contends that “the private key 204 can be stored in the cryptographic key storage 155 and in a multiple key storage of the non-volatile flash memory 160,” and “only the OS nub 16 can retrieve the private key.” Id. at 59–60. According to Petitioner, because “the OS nub 16 is within the secure platform and isolated environment,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) that “the cryptographic key storage 155 and the non-volatile flash memory 160 are secure storage locations so that the private key 204 can be accessed securely by OS nub 16.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96). Thus, Petitioner contends that “Ellison explicitly teaches that the OS nub 16 and private key 204 shown in platform 200 all operate within the isolated execution environment,” which “would indicate to a POSITA that private key 204 is stored in a secure memory and is inaccessible to a user of said electronic device.” Id. Nevertheless, Petitioner contends that Muir “explicitly teaches a private key 167 stored in a restricted memory space 170 which is inaccessible to the operating system.” Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 1008, 7–9, 3). Petitioner then contends that Ellison’s OS nub 16 “retrieves the encrypted private key 204 and decrypts it for use in the isolated environment.” Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:33–65, 11:1–12:26). Thus, Petitioner contends that “Ellison and Muir render obvious the private key 204 being encrypted when stored in a secure memory (e.g.,” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,992,480 - 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 - Lassen Therapeutics 1, Inc. v. Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd., And National University Of SignaporeInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · PGR2019-00053 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–10 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute a post-grant review 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented fails to demonstrate it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the challenged claims of the ’603 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of post-grant review of claims 1–10 of the ’603 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the preliminary response only, it does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. Based on the current record and for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, we find that the prior art of record reflects this level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that “Interleukin 11 receptor α (IL- 11Rα) antibody” should not be construed to include antibodies that bind to IL-11Rα of non-human species but not to the human version of this protein because such a construction does not comport with the language of claim 1, which is clearly directed to treating a human subject. See Pause Tech. v. TiVo, 419 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (rejecting interpretation of claim element that ignored “other language appearing later in the claim” in stating that ‘“[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.’”) (citing Hockerson– Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.1999)). Construing this term to include antibodies that bind solely to non-human IL- 11Rα would be inconsistent with a claim directed to treatment of a human. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we construe “Interleukin 11 receptor α (IL-11Rα) antibody” to mean “any natural or synthetic, monoclonal or polyclonal antibody made using any animal system including phage, or fragment or derivative thereof, that binds to human IL-11Rα.”” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner appears to have overlooked the ’603 patent Specification’s disclosure of anti-IL-11Rα antibodies. Specifically, the ’603 patent lists “monoclonal antibody clone 025 (Sino Biological), clone EPR5446 (Abcam), clone 473143 (R & D Systems), clones 8E2 and 8E4 described in US 2014/0219919 A1 [Edwards] and the monoclonal antibodies described in Blanc et al (J. Immunol Methods. 2000 Jul. 31; 241(1–2); 43–59).” Ex. 1001, 18:41–46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 176.6 Edwards, which Petitioner relies on for its obviousness and anticipation grounds, is directed to antibodies “that bind to IL-11Rα and neutralize IL-11 signaling.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 13. Table 1 of Edwards lists clones 8E2 and 8E4 and sixty-three other antibodies (including variants of 8E2) as “exemplary IL-11Rα-binding proteins.” Id. ¶ 362. Table 1 of Edwards also includes the sequence ID numbers for the heavy and light chains of the variable regions of each of these sixty-five clones and the amino acid sequences for each are disclosed in the sequence listing. Id. ¶ 362, p. 46– 104.7” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,106,603 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01158 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Nathan ’259 and Nathan ’255, and over Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa; the Keller and Martin ground was not proven.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“The Federal Circuit recently addressed written description support for negative limitations, and what constitutes a “reason to exclude,” in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, the court asked whether “describing alternative features—without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature—can constitute a ‘reason to exclude’ under the standard articulated in Santarus.” Id. at 1355. Rejecting the appellant’s argument that a specification must state the advantage of excluding a particular feature, the court held that “Santarus simply reflects the fact that the specification need only satisfy the requirements of § 112, paragraph 1 as described in this court’s existing jurisprudence.” Id. at 1356. The “reason to exclude,” therefore, may be provided by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention. Id. The court proceeded to analyze whether there was sufficient evidence that the patentee possessed the negative claim limitation as of the filing date. Id. at 1357. In view of Inphi, we reject HTC’s argument that claims 1–15 are not entitled to an earlier priority date because AAD allegedly “fails to identify any teaching in the specification of any of its applications . . . that excludes a connection to a ‘network service center containing the names,’ fails to identify any disadvantages of such a network service center, and fails to otherwise provide a reason to exclude a network service center.” Pet. Reply 12 5 (emphasis added). We need not find a recitation in the originally-filed specification of any disadvantage of a network service center; rather, the proper inquiry is whether the priority application reasonably conveys that the inventor was in possession of an apparatus that could—without connecting to a network service center—display a list of names of sound tracks. We conclude that it does. As AAD points out, the device disclosed in the priority applications includes a number of inputs, but as Mr. McAlexander testifies, none of these inputs could be used to connect to a network service center. PO Resp. 12; Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. Furthermore, the applications disclose displaying a list of names of sound tracks, which are entered into the memory of the device by the user (as opposed to being obtained from a network service center). PO Resp. 12–13. Mr. McAlexander testifies that the specifications reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the described apparatus could display a list of names of sound tracks without being connected to a network service center. Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. After evaluating the specifications and the expert testimony, we agree. We, therefore, conclude that HTC has not met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–15 of the ’888 patent are not entitled to a priority date before the effective date of Keller. As such, HTC has not established that Keller is prior art to the ’888 patent, and has not proven that claims 1–15 are unpatentable as having been obvious over Keller and Martin.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“The Federal Circuit recently addressed written description support for negative limitations, and what constitutes a “reason to exclude,” in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, the court asked whether “describing alternative features—without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature—can constitute a ‘reason to exclude’ under the standard articulated in Santarus.” Id. at 1355. Rejecting the appellant’s argument that a specification must state the advantage of excluding a particular feature, the court held that “Santarus simply reflects the fact that the specification need only satisfy the requirements of § 112, paragraph 1 as described in this court’s existing jurisprudence.” Id. at 1356. The “reason to exclude,” therefore, may be provided by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention. Id. The court proceeded to analyze whether there was sufficient evidence that the patentee possessed the negative claim limitation as of the filing date. Id. at 1357. In view of Inphi, we reject HTC’s argument that claims 1–15 are not entitled to an earlier priority date because AAD allegedly “fails to identify any teaching in the specification of any of its applications . . . that excludes a connection to a ‘network service center containing the names,’ fails to identify any disadvantages of such a network service center, and fails to otherwise provide a reason to exclude a network service center.” Pet. Reply 12 5 (emphasis added). We need not find a recitation in the originally-filed specification of any disadvantage of a network service center; rather, the proper inquiry is whether the priority application reasonably conveys that the inventor was in possession of an apparatus that could—without connecting to a network service center—display a list of names of sound tracks. We conclude that it does. As AAD points out, the device disclosed in the priority applications includes a number of inputs, but as Mr. McAlexander testifies, none of these inputs could be used to connect to a network service center. PO Resp. 12; Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. Furthermore, the applications disclose displaying a list of names of sound tracks, which are entered into the memory of the device by the user (as opposed to being obtained from a network service center). PO Resp. 12–13. Mr. McAlexander testifies that the specifications reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the described apparatus could display a list of names of sound tracks without being connected to a network service center. Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. After evaluating the specifications and the expert testimony, we agree. We, therefore, conclude that HTC has not met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–15 of the ’888 patent are not entitled to a priority date before the effective date of Keller. As such, HTC has not established that Keller is prior art to the ’888 patent, and has not proven that claims 1–15 are unpatentable as having been obvious over Keller and Martin.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 181 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 183 (“it would be 34 obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that it would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“In cases in which the proffered evidence of commercial success is licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a 23 danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record”; otherwise the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’888 patent. Pet. Reply 24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’888 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’888 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’888 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’888 patent, or whether they were taken merely to 24 avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. We conclude that the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness over the combined Nathan references.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,400,888 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,400,888 - Schott Gemtron Corporation v. SSW Holding Company, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 20, 2014 · IPR2013-00358 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 13, and 25 not shown unpatentable: Angros was not shown to be analogous art, and the proposed combinations did not establish obviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Mr. Schechter testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’561 patent “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and at least four years of experience designing and manufacturing shelf assemblies or equivalent education and training.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 4. Patent Owner’s witness, Mr. Richard Bruce Mills, defined a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’561 patent to be a person with at least an associate’s or bachelor’s degree and three years of experience working with shelf assemblies, and having familiarity with “encapsulated spill containing refrigerator shelves.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 8. Based on our review of the ’561 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’561 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention (i.e., as of June 27, 2008, as discussed above in Section II.B.3.a.) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, and at least three years of work experience with refrigerator shelf assemblies. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 16–62 (stating that the ’561 patent relates to “shelving which may be adapted for use with refrigerators,” and describing conventional refrigerator shelf assemblies that use plastic molded parts to encapsulate shelves and silicone sealants to form physical spill containment barriers around the perimeter of the refrigerator shelving); Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 1–2 (describing the background of Mr. Schechter); Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 3–5 (describing the background of Mr. Mills). We note that under this standard, Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Schechter, does not qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Mr. Schechter has a Master’s of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering, he has only worked as an engineer designing and manufacturing shelf assemblies since December 2011. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 1-2. Thus, Mr. Schechter had less than two years of experience when he signed his declaration on June 14, 2013. Id. ¶ 36. Furthermore, Mr. Schechter was not a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’561 patent (i.e., June 27, 2008). Indeed, at his deposition, Mr. Schechter testified that he does not qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art under the definition in his declaration. Ex. 1011, 26:2–13. In this case, we accord the testimony of Mr. Schechter regarding the alleged obviousness of the claims less weight because he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention disclosed in the ’561 patent.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s position is unpersuasive. Contrary to Petitioner’s characterization, Example 1 in the ’561 patent discloses only a demonstration of water retention by a shelf with a hydrophobic border. See Ex. 1001, col. 20, ll. 1–9. The patent recounts, in Example 1, a test to determine the amount of water retainable on a shelf, within a hydrophobic border, without leakage. Id. Thus, Example 1 does not show that the term “spill” merely means liquid placed on a surface. Therefore, we construe “spill,” in accordance with its plain meaning and consistent with the specification of the ’561 patent, to mean “an accidental or unintentional release of liquid.” See Ex. 2003; Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 28–49 (describing Figure 3 as illustrating “the concept that the hydrophobic surface 1030 will form a spill containment barrier,” and using soda can 1026 turned on its side as an example for “spilled liquid”).” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“entions. A As discusse ed in detail l below, we e conclude e that the ’2 273 prov visional app plication, w which is th he earlier fi iled of the two provis sional appl ications, su upports the e claim ele ements reci ited in clai ms 1, 13, a and 25. Ther refore, the ’561 paten nt is entitle ed to the Ju une 27, 200 08 filing da ate of the ’273” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable
“A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subjected matter, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The “field of endeavor” test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention as disclosed in the application. Id. at 1325-27. It is necessary to apply “common sense” in “deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.” Id. at 1326 (citations and quotation marks omitted). As to the “reasonably pertinent” test: A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. Thus, the purposes of both the invention and the prior art are important in determining whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem the invention attempts to solve. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection. An inventor may well have been motivated to consider the reference when making his invention. If it is directed to a different purpose, the inventor would accordingly have had less motivation or occasion to consider it. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,286,561 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,286,561
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.