- Offshore Technical Compliance, LLC v. Innovative Pressure Testing, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00923 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 were held unpatentable as obvious over BOP California, Wodjenski, and Winters; the revised motion to amend proposing claims 19–35 was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“1 The Petition requested review of claims 1–18, but Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claim 18. Pet. 3; Ex. 2001; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018). claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claims 1–17 of the ’143 patent are unpatentable; and (2) Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims 19–35 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“B. Testimony of Mr. Anderson Patent Owner contends that the testimony provided by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“D. Claim Construction The Board uses “the same claim construction standard that would be” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,207,143 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,207,143 - Flex Logix Technologies Inc. v. Venkat KondaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2021 · PGR2019-00042 · APJ Norman H Beamer · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 are unpatentable under §§ 102(a)(1) and 103; the revised motion to amend and motion to exclude are denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy, we do not expressly construe any claim term for purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Ex. 1001, 49:9–18. Petitioner argues, and we agree, that this language is non-limiting as reciting optional features that “may or may not” be present, and therefore irrelevant to the issue of anticipation.9 Pet. 54–57.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“In light of these and other disclosures in Wong ’308, Petitioner argues that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement the switches of the ’756 PCT application using multiplexers. Pet. 102; Ex. 1002 ¶ 182. Patent Owner does not challenge this fact — the references to multiplexers (also referred to a “muxes”) in the ’342 patent suggest that Patent Owner would concede this point. E.g., Ex. 1001, 9:67, 14:33. Upon review of the record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of the ’724 provisional application and Wong ’308 renders claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 obvious.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,003,553 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,003,553 - BMW Of North America, LLC v. Stragent, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00677 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 51–59 are unpatentable: claims 51–59 over Staiger and Millsap, and claims 51 and 54–57 over each OSEK-based obviousness ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“We have reviewed the relevant deposition testimony, in which Dr. Miller was asked to identify the standard he used when construing claim terms in his Declaration. Ex. 1025, 27:1–34:14. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Miller did not provide responses sufficient to conclude that he was aware of and/or applied the correct claim-construction standard. See id. at 27:5–6 (“I used what is generally accepted in the field.”), 27:9–11 (“So to – for construing the claim terms is providing a definition of what the term is. So I provided a general definition for the terms.”), 30:3–6 (“Well, that’s the standard that I used for construing the claim terms in this Declaration. I don’t know if that’s the legal qualification for construing claim terms.”), 32:18–23 (“broadest reasonable interpretation” would mean “when you’re defining a term that you would define it in a way that is, first of all, reasonable, that it makes sense and that it’s broad, meaning general and that it’s interpreting the phrase or the term”). Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that the appropriate remedy is exclusion of Dr. Miller’s testimony. As Patent Owner asserts, “[t]he role of the expert witness under the Federal Rules of Evidence is to ‘help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’” Paper 24, 2–3 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702) (emphasis by Patent Owner). As Patent Owner further asserts, Petitioner does not “impugn[]” Dr. Miller’s credibility as an expert in the subject matter at issue. Id. at 3–4. We agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s attack on the sufficiency of the evidence is improper in a motion to exclude.” Id. at 4 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc., Case IPR2013-00292 at 52–53 (Paper 93) (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014)). We accordingly deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Petitioner alternatively argues in its Reply that “Because Dr. Miller did not apply the correct claim construction standard, his opinions on claim construction (Ex. 2001, §§16-21) should be afforded no weight.” Reply 2. Although we agree that the weight to be accorded to Dr. Miller’s testimony on claim construction is impacted by the uncertainty of the analytical procedure he followed, we are not persuaded that his testimony should be discounted wholesale. Dr. Miller provides relevant opinions on a number of issues, particularly including how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand certain terms in light of the Specification, that are helpful to us as the trier of fact. “There is no more certain test for determining when experts may be used than the common sense inquiry whether the untrained layman would be qualified to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject involved in the dispute.” Ladd, Expert Testimony, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 414, 418 (1952).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“shared “in real time utilizing a second network protocol . . . ,” and dependent claim 59 recites that information is processed “to create, in real-time, messages in at least two other message formats . . . .” Petitioner argues that the Specification of the ’843 patent expressly defines “real-time”: “In the context of the present description, real-time may include any response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than 1 second.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 35–38. Accordingly, Petitioner proposes that “‘real-time’ should be construed as responses that occur in less than one second.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner contends that the definition from the Specification should be adopted. PO Resp. 15. We construe “real-time” as Petitioner proposes, i.e., as including responses that occur in less than one second. The first part of the quote cited above provided in the Specification (“may be measured in milli- or microseconds”) is not limiting because any response time, no matter how large or small, may be measured in milli- or microseconds.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“been reached in association with the storage request.” Petitioner proposes that “threshold” be construed consistent with a dictionary definition it provides, as a “value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1016, 5). Observing that the Specification of the ’843 patent uses “threshold” in the context of an elapsed time, Petitioner further proposes that this construction “include the maximum value (i.e., time-out) of a timer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 21–25, col. 8, ll. 47–51). We agree, and accordingly construe “threshold” as Petitioner proposes.3 3. “heterogeneous networks” Dependent claim 55 recites that the “apparatus is operable such that the first network and the second network are heterogeneous networks.” The Specification of the ’843 patent defines “heterogeneous networks”: “In the context of the present description, heterogeneous networks may refer to any different communication networks with at least one aspect that is different.” Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 26–29. In light of this explicit definition, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “heterogeneous networks” as Petitioner proposes, i.e., as “networks having at least one aspect that is different.” Pet. 14 (citing 3 Patent Owner advocates for the same construction advanced by Petitioner, but omits inclusion of the maximum value of a timer. PO Resp. 15. Although Patent Owner asserts that the construction is otherwise “the definition provided by the ‘843 Patent,” it does not cite to the ’843 patent to support its assertion, and we are unable to identify such a definition in the patent. Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that any distinction between the constructions is not material to any grounds. See Reply 6.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,566,843 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,566,843 - Motionpoint Corporation v. Transperfect Global, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00060 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable for lack of adequate written description under § 112, first paragraph.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“that “hyperlink” is a well-understood term that the ’022 patent uses in accordance with its ordinary meaning. As explained above, the Microsoft Computer User’s Dictionary makes clear that a hyperlink includes a connection to another element or document. Patent Owner points to no persuasive evidence that the ’022 patent describes a hyperlink as separate from this connection such that the connection can be changed with the hyperlink remaining the same. Indeed, the ’022 patent describes “replac[ing] all links in the translated web page 7 with links that point to the translation manager 4” as part of the translation process. Ex. 1001, 3:37–38. Thus, as described in the patent, changing the connection to point to the translation manager requires a new link. This is consistent with the ordinary meaning of a hyperlink as including a specific connection from one document to another element or document. Our preliminary construction of “hyperlink” included “a link or connection” but did not include a recitation of the element or document linked. To resolve the parties’ dispute, consistent with the ordinary meaning and the specification, we conclude, on the full record before us, that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood “hyperlink” to mean “a connection between an element in a hypertext document, such as a word, phrase, symbol, or image, and a different element in the document, another hypertext document, a file, or a script.”” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“First, the inter partes reexamination of the ’022 patent is relevant to our consideration of the claim construction issues presented here because claim construction was at issue in the reexamination. Second, we see no risk of undue prejudice that would outweigh the probative value of the documents and evidence submitted in the reexamination. Of note, is that this proceeding is not a jury trial and, thus, the risk of prejudice in this forum is less than what may otherwise exist before a jury. Third, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibit 1013 is not hearsay at least under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) because the testimony in Dr. Nakhimovsky’s Declaration was submitted by, and on behalf of, Patent Owner to the Patent Office, thus evidencing that Patent Owner manifested a belief that the statements contained therein were true. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as applied to Exhibit 1013 is denied.” slip op. at 22
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s first argument is contrary to our constructions of the term “hyperlink” and the phrase “said hyperlink.” As reflected in our construction, “said hyperlink” in each of independent claims 1, 17, and 26, refers back to the original recitation of “one or more hyperlinks” in the original (untranslated) electronic communication. The portion of the specification relied upon by Patent Owner does not disclose providing translation of said further electronic communications when the original one or more hyperlink is activated. Rather, this disclosure indicates that the translation manager may replace all of the links (i.e., hyperlinks) in the translated web page with links that point to the translation manager. These replaced links are in the translated electronic communication (e.g., web page 7), and not in the original untranslated electronic communication (e.g., web page 2). Thus, this disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of a translation manager that provides translation of further electronic communications when the one or more hyperlinks in the original untranslated electronic communication is activated (i.e., one or more hyperlinks with unmodified destination addresses). See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 25
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not reached
“E. Indefiniteness of Claims 23 and 25–28 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph Our determination that each challenged claim is unpatentable for lack of an adequate written description renders it unnecessary to reach Petitioner’s contentions that claims 23 and 25–28 of the ’022 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 6,857,022 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,857,022 - Search America, Inc. v. Transunion Intelligence, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2015 · CBM2013-00037 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: the TDHS System anticipates claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10–14; the asserted obviousness grounds and written-description ground also succeed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“First, Patent Owner contends that the plain meaning of “derived” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application was “obtained by reasoning” or “calculated.” Id. In support of this contention, Patent Owner cites the Declaration of Stephen Gray,1 which refers to one of the definitions provided by Random House Webster’s Dictionary, 4th ed., Ballantine Books (New York 2001). Ex. 2002 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 2002E). But as Petitioner points out, Mr. Gray refers to the last definition in the dictionary entry, although the first definition provided for the word “derive” is “to receive or get from a source.” Reply 4. Second, Patent Owner refers to a statement in the specification of the ’937 patent that “the debt to income ratio can be computed,” reasoning that “one of ordinary skill would understand that the credit information input into the method of claim 1 could not have been mere data taken from a credit report but rather would have been the result of some calculation or computation.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 65–66; Ex. 2002 ¶ 104). We disagree with Patent Owner’s reasoning, because the statement in the specification merely provides an example of a calculation. Furthermore, as Petitioner observes, Patent Owner’s position is untenable because the context of the identified statement refers to calculation of “qualification 1 As discussed below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude the Gray Declaration. criteria” rather than of “credit information.” See Reply 5. The claim’s text distinguishes between “qualification criteria” and “credit information.” In addition, and as Petitioner also observes, the prosecution history supports that credit information need not be calculated to be input. See id.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“a credit report of the patient.” Petitioner contends that the Data Broker module obtained a computerized report on each applicant at the request of an eligibility worker, extracted certain credit information, and combined the extracted credit information with data about the applicant to provide a combined report to the eligibility worker for viewing in the TDHS System. Pet. 38. Patent Owner contends that the credit information extracted from the computerized report is not “credit information derived from a credit report” (emphasis added). PO Resp. 20–21. We disagree. In accordance with our construction of “derived” as “received from a source,” we conclude that the Data Broker module inputs “credit information derived from a credit report.”” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds the “Belford has nothing to do with providing financial assistance for medical care of financially needy people” and that “Petitioner provides no reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teaching of a reference that discusses providing loans to people that have the ability to pay (credit worthiness) with needy people that cannot pay (charity).” PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner characterizes the relevant disclosures too narrowly. Belford is reasonably pertinent to the problem identified by Petitioner, namely the need for a patient to pay some amount even after receiving financial assistance. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Identification of the problem and how it is solved by Belford provides sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). We conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 9 would have been obvious over the TDHS System and Belford.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Evidence of commercial success, or other secondary considerations, is only significant if there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the commercial success.” Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2006). To establish a proper nexus, Patent Owner must offer “proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention—as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the patented subject matter.” In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,333,937 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,333,937
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.