• Triller, Inc. v. Tiktok Pte. Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00180 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “framework, with the first part being 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. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (addressing in a two part framework the factors presented in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III(C)(5), first paragraph)). As we discuss below, we are not persuaded that the first part of the framework is met. Patent Owner does not argue that Abrams previously was presented to the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 7 n.3, 25 n.7. And we are not persuaded that Abrams is substantially the same art as Sittig or Reddick simply because Abrams may have one claimed feature in common with Sittig (i.e., “a generic browser”) and a different claimed feature in common with Reddick (i.e., allowing a user to edit, but not create, profiles). Id. Petitioner is relying on Abrams to teach multiple claimed features, and Patent Owner’s § 325(d) arguments address only a subset of those features. Id.” slip op. at 6

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

    “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); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2021). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’322 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent discipline, or equivalent experience, including familiarity with multitasking and multithreading, wireless communications and client/server computing, and, in addition, familiarity with digital music distribution and DRM.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 62; Pet. 35. Patent Owner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Human Factors, or an equivalent degree and at least two years of experience working in the fields of user interfaces, communications applications, networking applications, or media applications, or a person with equivalent education, work, or experience in such fields.” Prelim. Resp. 2. The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we find in applying either parties’ definition for what comprises the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as it is supported by expert testimony, and Patent Owner’s is not. slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownOther

    “Petitioner does not identify any specific claim term for construction. Pet. 5. Patent Owner submits that the claim term “software application” is defined in the Specification of the ’322 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3. More specifically, Patent Owner submits that the “Definitions” section of the Specification provides the following: “Software Application: The Client software application which is to be delivered over-the-air to, or pre-installed on, the Wireless Computing Device.” See id. (quoting Ex. 1002, 8:63–65). We note that the definition for software application incorporates, based on the capitalization of defined words, the following additional definitions10 from the “Definitions” section of the Specification:” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,992,322
• Triller, Inc. v. Tiktok Pte. Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00179 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6, 22, 26, 27, and 31 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on the petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute 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); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2021). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’132 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework, with the first part being whether the same or substantially the 4 US 2006/0008256 A1, published Jan. 12, 2006 (Ex. 1011, “Khedouri”). 5 US 8,572,169 B2, issued Oct. 29, 2013 (Ex. 1010, “Partovi”). 6 US 2010/0031366 A1, published Feb. 4, 2010 (Ex. 1012, “Knight”). substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (addressing in a two part framework the factors presented in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III(C)(5), first paragraph)). As we discuss below, we are not persuaded that the first part of the framework is met. Patent Owner does not argue that Abrams previously was presented to the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 7 n.3, 26 n.7. And we are not persuaded that Abrams is substantially the same art as Sittig or Reddick simply because Abrams may have one claimed feature in common with Sittig (i.e., “a generic browser”) and a different claimed feature in common with Reddick (i.e., allowing a user to edit, but not create, profiles). Id. Petitioner is relying on Abrams to teach multiple claimed features, and Patent Owner’s § 325(d) arguments address only a subset of those features. Id. Moreover, as we discuss below, we disagree with Patent Owner that Sittig employing a browser was a reason that particular rejection was overcome. See infra Section IV (addressing Applicant’s remarks to a rejection). Rather, the rejection was overcome for failing to teach a limitation (i.e., that a software application allowed a user, over a wireless connection, to create a user account) that Abrams teaches. See id.; infra Section VI(B)(3) (applying Abrams). Nor do we agree with Patent Owner that Abrams (unlike Reddick) fails to teach allowing a user to create an account. See infra Section VI(B)(3) (applying Abrams). substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 7 n.3, 26 n.7. In light of the above, we find that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not met, and thus, we do not proceed to the second part. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we find in applying either parties’ definition for what comprises the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as it is supported by expert testimony, and Patent Owner’s is not. During trial, and in accordance with our Rules, the parties should address what substantive effect, if any, different proposed definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art have on analyzing what the prior art teaches or in otherwise evaluating unpatentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Pet. 4. Patent Owner submits that the claim term “software application” is defined in the Specification of the ’132 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3. More specifically, Patent Owner submits that the “Definitions” section of the Specification provides the following: “Software Application: The Client software application which is to be delivered over-the-air to, or pre-installed on, the Wireless Computing Device.” See id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:61–63). We note that the definition for software application incorporates, based on the capitalization of defined words, the following additional definitions7 from the “Definitions” section of the Specification: (i) “Client: A computing device connected to a network delivering the features and functions of a network-centric application to the user or consumer of the application”; (ii) “Wireless Computing Device: A type of Client which connects to the network via a Wireless Network”; and (iii) “Wireless Network: A network which provides wireless” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,648,132
• PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00050 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–30 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted references qualified as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356,1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 15

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

    “But, even accepting these premises, we disagree with the conclusion Petitioner asks us to draw from them. In particular, Petitioner appears to contend that we should find that the ’974 application does not provide written description support for the claims of the ’638 patent merely because the scope of the claims includes a configuration that is not expressly described in that document. See Pet. 15–16, 22. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“An applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); Application of Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the description requirement in section 112.”).” slip op. at 22

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

    “D. Obviousness Grounds Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1–30 of the ’638 patent would have been obvious over various combinations of Oakes-I, Oakes-II, Medina, and Roach (collectively, “the asserted references”). Pet. 5, 32–100. Petitioner argues that the asserted references are prior art because the claims of the ’638 patent are not entitled to a priority date earlier than July 28, 2017. Id. at 4–5, 11–29. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of success because Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that the asserted references qualify as prior art. Prelim. Resp. 18–59. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art,8 and as a result, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that any claim would have been unpatentable based on the asserted references.” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “In the first Joint Motion to Seal, the parties request entry of a Protective Order that is substantially the same as the Board’s Default Protective Order (see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide16 at 107–122 (App. B, Protective Order Guidelines and Default Protective Order)). Paper 9, 2.17 The parties also request sealing of Exhibit 2006 and sealing of portions of the Preliminary Response relating to that exhibit. Id. at 2–3. The portions of the Preliminary Response (Paper 11) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Preliminary Response filed as Paper 12. Based on the representations in the Joint Motion to Seal (Paper 9), the parties have shown good cause for entering the Protective Order and for sealing Exhibit 2006 and the identified portions of the Preliminary Response.” slip op. at 37

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,402,638
• Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2020-01189 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto; the Board denied the motion to amend because the proposed substitute claims were also obvious over Sakamoto.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that the Specification’s statement about tradeoffs between “optimal battery life” and “optimal update rate” necessarily requires a spectrum of at least three threshold values (i.e., two endpoints and at least one value between them). If anything, this statement supports the view that such tradeoffs can be made between as few as two points: an endpoint where less updates are traded for better battery life, and an endpoint where worse battery life is traded for more updates. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 4 (slider 432). We also do not ascribe any significance to the plural “tradeoffs” in Patent Owner’s cited statement, because every point in such a spectrum would involve its own tradeoffs between battery life and update frequency. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the Specification does not support Patent Owner’s interpretation of a multitude as necessarily being three or more. We also consider the Specification’s statement about “obtain[ing] optimal battery life, obtain[ing] optimal update rate, [and the] tradeoffs between them” (Ex. 1001, 11:58–63) to at least be consistent with the notion that “multitude” means two or more in the context of the ’774 patent.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “switching among Sakamoto’s positioning modes for teaching the updated sets. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5–10, 28). Mr. Andrews testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have appreciated that switching the positioning modes (responsive to a low-power condition or to user command) changes the frequency with which Sakamoto’s terminal transmits and receives data (i.e., updates the communication signaling protocol of the terminal).” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. Petitioner also explains how changing Sakamoto’s modes changes the associated listen rate and request rate. See Pet. 31–34. And, as acknowledged by Patent Owner at the oral hearing, the “updated set based on the claim language would include either/or both a refresh rate and a listen rate.” Tr. 39:17–18. Thus, Petitioner persuasively shows that Sakamoto teaches the recited “updated set of network communication signaling protocols.” We also are persuaded that Sakamoto’s modes switch “in substantially real-time” based on Sakamoto’s teaching of an “automatic shift” from high sensitivity mode to normal mode based on the battery falling below a threshold and based on Sakamoto’s aim of reducing power consumption. Pet. 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 29, 46); Ex. 1003 ¶ 88. Mr. Andrews testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have appreciated that switching the positioning modes (responsive to a low-power condition or to user command) changes the frequency with which Sakamoto’s terminal transmits and receives data (i.e., updates the communication signaling protocol of the terminal).” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. Against this showing, Patent Owner has not put forth any evidence to support its contention that “generat[ing] . . . an updated set” requires the generation of entirely new parameters or that such parameters cannot be taken from predetermined sets. As such, Patent Owner’s position amounts to unsupported attorney argument; it does not undermine Petitioner’s persuasive showing that Sakamoto teaches real-time updating of network signaling protocol sets in order to reduce power consumption via Sakamoto’s mode switching. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 29, 46.” slip op. at 30

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Having considered Petitioner’s contentions and evidence and Patent Owner’s arguments, we find that Sakamoto teaches every limitation of proposed substitute claim 20 in light of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of proposed substitute claim 20 would have been obvious over Sakamoto. 2. Proposed Substitute Claims 23–25 Proposed substitute claims 23–25 depend directly or indirectly from proposed substitute claim 20 and are the same as original claims 4–6 except that the claim dependencies have been updated. We have analyzed all limitations of proposed substitute claims 23–25 above. See supra §§ II.D.3– 5. Thus, for the same reasons, we determine Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 23–25 would have been obvious over Sakamoto.” slip op. at 65

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on our understanding of this limitation (see infra § III.C), we do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments. Regarding the request rate and listen rate, the ’451 application discloses that the “updated set of network communication signaling protocols . . . includes an update rate (e.g., refresh rate) of location coordinate packets 446.” Ex. 2017, 17:14–16. In turn, “the update rate of location coordinate packets 446 includes request rate 420 of location coordinate packets 422 by target host 452 . . . and/or listen rate 425 of location coordinate packets 422 by portable electronic tracking device 402.” Id. at 17:16–19. Regarding the repeating time interval, the ’451 application discloses that “[i]n response to receipt of updated set of network communication signaling protocols, portable location tracking device 402 adjusts settings (an internal time schedule)” and “[p]ortable location tracking device 402 checks internal time schedule to determine if it should listen for (perform a location lookup of) location coordinates 422 from satellite navigation system 403.” Id. at 18:7–15. Further, the ’451 application describes examples of update rate intervals (in minutes) for tracking a dog, a car, and rented construction equipment that constitute the repeating time intervals for the request rate and/or listen rate. See id. at 21:8–22:16. In light of these disclosures, we determine that the ’451 application adequately supports “a request rate representing a repeating time interval for of location coordination packets to be communicated to a target host and a listen rate representing a repeating time interval for receipt of the location coordinate packets from a satellite navigation system,” as recited in proposed substitute claim 20 and similarly recited in proposed substitute claim 27. For these reasons, and considering Patent Owner’s evidence of support in the ’807 publication and the ’451 application, we determine that Patent Owner has shown adequate written description support for proposed substitute claims 20, 23–25, 27, 29, 32, and 34.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 8,497,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,497,774
• Apple Inc. v. LBT IP I LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2020-01190 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto, Gotoh, and Levi; the revised motion to amend proposing claims 21–40 is denied as those claims are also unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “an inter partes review of claims 1–20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,113 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’113 patent”). LBT IP I LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8). Taking into account the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determined that the information presented in the Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to its unpatentability challenges. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this proceeding on March 4, 2021, as to all challenged claims and all grounds of unpatentability. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”).” slip op. at 1

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art (or “POSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in GPS navigation, dead reckoning, portable tracking devices, or related technologies.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). For purposes of our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art without the qualifier “at least.” Dec. on Inst. 7. Patent Owner states that it adopts this definition. PO Resp. 3; MTA 17; RMTA 17–18. Thus, we discern no reason to change the level of ordinary skill in the art applied in this Final Written Decision. Accordingly, a person 4 The trial record does not include any evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent degree, with two years of experience in GPS navigation, dead reckoning, portable tracking devices, or related technologies. We determine that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’113 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Neither party puts forth any terms for construction. See Pet. 8. We determine that no terms require explicit construction. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “combination. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Sakamoto’s terminal to include Gotoh’s accelerometer, which is used to record acceleration data when the terminal is unable to receive GPS signals. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–118; Ex. 1005 ¶ 81. We are further persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have implemented Levi’s dead reckoning techniques in the combined system to determine differential position coordinates based on accelerometer data. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 201–202. We note that the secondary references themselves provide reasons for the combination insofar as Gotoh and Levi both teach the use of an accelerometer to supplement GPS positioning when a GPS signal is lost. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 66; Ex. 1006, 2:10–14. We are also persuaded by Mr. Andrews’s uncontested testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in making the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 117, 202. For these reasons, Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reasons to combine Gotoh and Levi with Sakamoto. c. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has persuasively shown that the combination of Sakamoto, Gotoh, and Levi teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also has put forth persuasive reasons for combining these references and has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected success in making the combination. On the entire trial record, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Sakamoto, Gotoh, and Levi.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,542,113 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,542,113
• PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Oakes was prior art, so it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable over Oakes and Maloney.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner asks us to draw from them. In particular, Petitioner appears to contend that we should find that the ’247 application does not provide written description support for the device limitation merely because the scope of the claim includes a configuration that is not expressly described in that document. See Pet. 17–18, 21. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“An applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); Application of Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the description requirement in section 112.”). There are situations where a claim’s breadth results in a lack of written description support, but Petitioner fails to show that such a situation is present here. In its argument, Petitioner primarily relies on Reckitt, but” slip op. at 15

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

    “that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that Oakes is prior art,8 and as a result, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that any claim would have been unpatentable over Oakes and Maloney.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “Preliminary Response and Exhibit 2006); Paper 13 (relating to the Reply); and Paper 19 (relating to the Sur-reply). In each of these motions, the parties seek to protect as confidential certain information that relates to the issue of whether Petitioner has properly identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). As we deny the Petition on the merits and do not grant the request to institute an inter partes review, the issue of identification of the real parties in interest to this proceeding is moot. Accordingly, we do not reach the arguments and evidence of the parties relating to whether the Petitioner identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition and we make no reference in this decision to the documents and information that the parties seek to protect as confidential.” slip op. at 25

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,621,559
• PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01071 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Oakes and Roach qualify as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its 2 US 7,873,200 B1, filed Oct. 31, 2006, issued Jan. 18, 2011 (Ex. 1038). 3 US 2013/0155474 A1, published June 20, 2013 (Ex. 1040). burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “To satisfy the written description requirement [in § 112,] the disclosure of the prior application must ‘convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The sufficiency of written description support is based on “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. “The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement” necessarily “varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. The invention need not be described in haec verba, but a disclosure that merely renders obvious the claims does not provide adequate written description support. Id. at 1352.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered Dr. Noble’s testimony, but it suffers from the same deficiencies as Petitioner’s arguments. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–59. Moreover, in our view, Dr. Noble does not sufficiently explain his conclusions regarding what a person of ordinary skill would have understood the inventor of the ’247 application to possess (or not possess), and accordingly, we assign little weight to that testimony. E.g., id. ¶¶ 47, 53, 55; see TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”).” slip op. at 21

  • ExcludeGranted

    “In the first Joint Motion to Seal, the parties request entry of a Protective Order that is substantially the same as the Board’s Default Protective Order (see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide12 at 107–122 (App. B, Protective Order Guidelines and Default Protective Order)). Paper 9, 2.13 The parties also request sealing of Exhibit 2006 and sealing of portions of the Preliminary Response relating to that exhibit. Id. at 2–3. The portions of the Preliminary Response (Paper 8) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Preliminary Response filed as Paper 11. Based on the representations in the Joint Motion to Seal (Paper 9), the parties have shown good cause for entering the Protective Order and for sealing Exhibit 2006 and the identified portions of the Preliminary Response. Paper 14 (Joint Motion to Seal the Reply) and Paper 19 (Joint Motion to Seal the Sur-reply) request sealing of the portions of the Reply and Sur-reply relating to Exhibit 2006. The portions of the Reply (Paper 13) and Sur-reply (17) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Reply filed as Paper 16 and from the redacted version of the Sur-reply filed as Paper 20. Based on the representations in these two Joint Motion to Seal (Papers 14 and 19), the parties have shown good cause for sealing the identified portions of the Reply and Sur-reply.” slip op. at 27

  § 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,482,432

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.