- Reolink Innovation Inc. / Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co., Ltd. v. Throughtek Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00509 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Throughtek-2012 and the Lorex Video; claims 1–3, 6, 10, 12–14, 17, and 18 are also unpatentable under two other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Bims, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’842 patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of work experience with network and communication technologies. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 15–16). Patent Owner does not provide any proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’842 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts “no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 55; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 701 Fed. Appx. 946, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Petitioner states “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1303; 37 C.F.R. §42.100). Patent Owner presents no proposed claim constructions. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See 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 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS RE47,842 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham - PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · PGR2024-00011 · APJ Jean R Homere · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–15 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is obvious over Chang, Chang II, and POSITA knowledge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) 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 considering the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response (including its supporting testimonial evidence), we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“Petitioner hereby stipulates that, if the PTAB institutes this post-grant review, Petitioner will not pursue invalidity of the Challenged Claims in a parallel district court proceeding on the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB in this Petition. Pet. 106. Petitioner cites the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”)3 in support of its contentions. Pet. 106.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“§ 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non-exclusive factors, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we consider whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“At the time of the invention, a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience working with computer network protocols such as USB. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Id. (citations omitted). At this stage, we find Patent Owner’s proposed level of a POSITA to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’643 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We nonetheless invite the parties to further address this issue, if they deem it necessary and appropriate. The parties should also specifically explain how different definitions for one of ordinary skill in the art relate to specific arguments and issues of unpatentability or claim construction, to the extent that a dispute remains as to who constitutes a POSITA.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,681,643 - Intel Corporation v. Ax Wireless, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01146 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show Huang or Sun was prior art to claims 1–10, which it argued were obvious over those references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For purposes of institution, Petition bears the burden to establish, by a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the cited art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Where unpatentability rests on a document that is prior art to a challenged patent but for that patent’s priority claim to an earlier effective filing date, such a priority claim is not presumed valid. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the USPTO does not routinely determine whether such priority claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineer-ing or a similar discipline, and/or at least two to three years of experience working or conducting research in wireless commu-nication protocols, or an equivalent combination of education and experience. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 72). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’146 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). The Board is required to construe “only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner and Patent Owner, in extended briefing, contest the construction of the phrase “detecting, from the received wireless packet, the second header field which repeats the first header field,” as it appears in claim 1. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 1; Pet. Reply 3; PO Sur-Reply 3. However, both parties appear to agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term should apply. See Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 15. Further, Petitioner has clarified that its statements as to the scope of the term are directed to its assertions that the ’146 patent lacks support for the claimed subject matter in its parent applications. Pet. Reply. 5–6. Consequently, we address claim construction arguments in their context of the parties’ priority contentions. See infra at II.D.1.” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner has shown sufficient written description support for the claims, including the disputed “detecting” limitation. The “decode-to-learn- ‘D’” description in the specification of the ’146 patent and in the provisional application to which the ’146 patent claims priority describe a specific procedure for the claimed “detecting, from the received wireless packet, the second header field which repeats the first header field.”3 See Ex. 1001, 2 Petitioner specifically asserts that Huang qualifies under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Pet. 2, 19 (“by more than a year”). However, Huang’s patent issuance date of April 28, 2020 does not qualify under § 102(b) because it is less than one year before the December 29, 2020 filing date of the ’146 patent. Nevertheless, Petitioner has made an effective showing that Sun would qualify as prior art sufficient to shift the burden of production to Patent Owner. 3 Patent Owner does not explicitly show support for each of the applications in the priority chain. Patent Owner also cites to a Pre-Grant Publication rather than the underlying application despite the fact that such a Publication may include amendments to the originally filed application that would not evidence written description. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.215 (a); MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE §1121; Ex. 2003, 7 (showing amendments 3:1–11; Ex. 2001 ¶ 35; Ex. 1008, 5–6; PO Sur-Reply 6. The “D” information is received in the wireless packet, and the receiver determines therefrom whether there is a second header field that repeats the first header field. See Ex. 1008, 5–6; PO Sur-Reply 6. The written description further includes descriptions of other embodiments for receiver detection with variable repetition, including detection “without knowing D a priori.” Ex. 1001, 2:18–3:59.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,212,146 - Motorola Mobility LLC v. Largan Precision Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 3, 2024 · IPR2022-01156 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–16, 18–24, 28, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Chen-069, which is prior art because the 2012 application lacks written-description support for their full scope.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’948 patent would have had “(i) a Bachelor’s degree in Physics, Optical Sciences, or equivalent education or training, as well as (ii) approximately three years of experience in designing multi-lens optical systems.” Id. at 12 (quoting Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28)). We also found that “[l]ack of work experience could have been offset by additional education, and vice versa,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood the fundamentals of optical aberration theory, and understood and used standard techniques for making lenses cheaper and more effective, especially for lens systems used in mobile devices.” Id. (quoting Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28, 30). We also agreed with Petitioner and found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have known how to use lens design software such as Code V, Oslo, and ZEMAX, and would have taken a lens design course or had equivalent training.” Id. (quoting Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). We also agreed with Petitioner and found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have regularly used such software to create new lens designs, often using pre-existing lens designs as a starting point and then performing routine optimizations to reach a desired design.” Id. at 12–13 (quoting Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’948 patent or identify any shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See PO Resp. 16–17. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’948 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that construing the challenged “claims to include first and second lens elements having the same refractive power . . . is improper.” PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art “would construe the [’]948 [p]atent claims to include first and second lens elements in the form of a ‘doublet,’ which requires the respective lens elements to have opposite refractive power, and thus includes only configurations” of “positive-negative” and “negative-positive” for the first and second lens elements, respectively. Id. at 20–21. In other words, “[t]he proper construction of the ’948 [p]atent claims is that the first and second lens elements may have positive-negative or negative-po[sitive] refractive powers, but would not include first and second lens elements having the same refractive polarity,” according to Patent Owner. Id. at 26. Thus, the parties agree that the challenged claims should be construed to encompass at least a lens system having a first lens element with a negative refractive power and a second lens element with a positive refractive power. See, e.g., Pet. 33; PO Resp. 21. We conclude that such a lens system is consistent with the plain language of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 12:8–26, 13:14–38, 14:16–46 (reciting first and second lens elements without reciting a specific refractive power polarity for the independent claims). And we determine that no claim terms require further construction in light of our findings below. See, e.g., 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)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we determine that the 2012 application does not provide written description support for an imaging lens system with a negative refractive power first lens and a positive refractive power second lens. And the agreed scope of the challenged claims includes such a configuration, and thus, the written description of the 2012 application does not support the full breadth of the challenged claims. We therefore determine that the challenged claims of the ʼ948 patent do not benefit from the priority date of the 2012 application. Therefore, we determine that Chen-069 is prior art to the challenged claims of the ʼ948 patent.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which are not addressed by Patent Owner (see generally PO Resp.), we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Chen-069 anticipates claim 1. D. Remaining Challenged Claims Petitioner argues that Chen-069 discloses the limitations recited in claims 2–4, 6–16, 18–24, 28, and 29. Pet. 48–65. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s arguments directed to these claims. See generally PO Resp. 32–34. Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Chen-069 anticipates claims 2–4, 6–16, 18–24, 28, and 29.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,784,948 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,784,948 - Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00972 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable because Speight anticipates them; the Board found Peisa anticipation and Peisa–Heo obviousness unproven for the challenged claims in those grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contention or propose a level of skill. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“agreement that this claim term should be read as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.” Dec. 11. The parties do not challenge this construction in the Patent Owner Response, Reply, or Sur-reply. On the complete record, we construe “wherein resources are allocated for data of each channel having a second parameter above zero prior to another channel’s data for transmission having a third parameter less than or equal to zero” as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.”” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition is required to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner argued in the Petition that “as properly construed, the claimed ‘first parameter,’ ‘second parameter,’ ‘third parameter,’ and ‘fourth parameter’ are four different parameters.” Pet. 17–18. In the Institution Decision, Petitioner prevailed on that point and “we agree[d] with Petitioner that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels.” Dec. 14. Patent Owner “relie[d] on the Board’s construction ‘that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels,’” and proposed distinct parameters in the Specification that it alleges are examples of second and third parameters, albeit not the same two parameters proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 9, 29. Petitioner now proposes new constructions for the second and third parameters that would limit those parameters to the two examples it advanced in the Petition and improperly supports these new constructions with new expert testimony and an exhibit from the prosecution of a later patent. Reply 20–25; Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29; Ex. 1038. See also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”)10 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). As Patent Owner observes (Sur-reply 10 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 21), it has no opportunity to introduce rebuttal evidence contesting the new constructions. See TPG 73–74 (Nov. 2019) (“The sur-reply may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the crossexamination of any reply witness. Sur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony.”). We agree with Patent Owner that it would be unfair to consider Petitioner’s new construction. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”). Thus, Petitioner has forfeited its new claim construction arguments and they will not be considered. See TPG 74 (“While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.”). Moreover, these arguments would be unpersuasive even if considered. Petitioner has, at most, cited description in the Specification to show that its identified second and third parameters are examples corresponding to the recited second and third parameters. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 84–95. This description does not define the second and third parameters nor purport to exclude from the claims any parameter that would otherwise meet the language of the claims. The prosecution history to which Petitioner cites, that of a child application, took place after the prosecution of the ’466 patent and thus, does not constitute a definition or disclaimer of subject matter for claims of the ’466 patent. In any case, the brief argument in the cited response to office action, that “[i]n the algorithm, the first value is provided by the wireless network for each of a plurality of buffers where the buffer having the second value above a threshold transmits data first,” does not define the second and third parameters, disavow any values from those parameters, or even discuss the third parameter. Ex. 1038, 12. Petitioner’s extrinsic evidence, Dr. Akl’s testimony, does little more than repeat the arguments in the Reply and, thus, is of little value. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29. In sum, we maintain our construction that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels. Under this construction, RAAUq” and RAAUq’, respectively, could potentially be second and third parameters, as could RAAUq’ and RAAUq”, respectively, as long as they satisfy the rest of the pertinent language of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“production, we still would find that a skilled artisan would not have been able to ascertain from the disclosure in the ’421 application that RAAUq’ could take values less than zero. Instead, even if we were to credit Dr. Lomp’s testimony, to conclude that RAAUq’ can take negative values, a skilled artisan would need to program computer software to simulate the ’421 application’s algorithm and correctly choose starting parameters and other context variables without guidance from the description in the ’421 application. This case is similar to that in New Railhead, where the written description was insufficient because “one of ordinary skill in the art must first make the patented invention before he can ascertain the claimed features of that invention.” 298 F.3d at 1295. This case also is similar to Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, in which an application’s written description was insufficient because assumptions and starting variables were not knowable from the disclosure in the application. 849 F.3d at 1058. Thus, even if we were to conclude that Patent Owner has met its burden of production, a preponderance of the evidence shows that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for Alternative A. In sum, we conclude that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for the challenged claims and that, therefore, Speight is prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,681,466 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,681,466 - Vmware, Inc. v. Cirba Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · PGR2021-00098 · APJ Russell E Cass · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–63 are unpatentable under § 112(a) because the patent lacks written-description support for the claimed “already placed” and “issue instructions” limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pet. 20–54. With its Petition, Petitioner submitted the Declaration of Dr. Erik Zadok. Ex. 1006. Patent Owner elected to waive its Preliminary Response. Paper 11. We instituted trial on all grounds of unpatentability. (Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”)).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“term “placing” requires more than a theoretical placing or planning to place as part of an analytical solution. Turning first to the claim language, we agree with Petitioner that the language of the independent claims is consistent with “placement” occurring after and separately from the analytical evaluation process. See Pet. Reply 3. For example, claim 1 is directed to a system for “determining placement of source computer systems on target systems,” the system configured to “determine a placement” by employing operations to “evaluate compatibility.” Ex. 1001, 40:2–4, 40:8– 36. The second “evaluate compatibility” operation is “to determine if the specific source system can be placed with those other source systems on the specific target system,” which suggests that what is being evaluated is whether the source system can be actually placed (e.g., moved or transferred) to the target system. Id. at 40:18–27 (emphasis added). Similarly, the third “evaluate compatibility” operation involves “evaluating the impact on resource utilization of the specific target system of placing the specific source system on the specific target system,” which suggests that what is being evaluated is the impact on resource utilization once the source system is actually moved or transferred to the target. Id. at 40:28–32 (emphasis added). Additionally, the claim states that, based on the “evaluate” operations, the claimed system “determine[s]” a placement, not that it executes the placement. Id. at 40:8–11. The actual placement seemingly occurs after the final claimed operation of “issu[ing] instructions to place” the source system(s) on to the target system “in accordance with the determined placement.” Id. at 40:37–39. Independent claims 32 and 63 include similar language. Id. at 42:36–43:3, 45:1–46:19. Had the patent applicant wanted to cover systems that were merely “hypothetically placed,” language to that effect could have been added to the claim.” slip op. at 19
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“As noted above, the claim language requires evaluating compatibility between a specific source system and one or more other source systems “already placed” on the target system. Paragraph 82 does not disclose the evaluation of compatibility of a source system and another source system as part of the “forward consolidation.” Additionally, paragraph 82 does not disclose that “existing target systems 16” have source systems “already placed” on them. Thus, paragraph 82 does not provide the level of detail recited in the limitation under either party’s definition of “placed.” In addition, as noted above, we have interpreted “placed” to require an actual placement rather than merely “planning to place” or a theoretical placement. See § II.A.2, supra. Therefore, even if the “existing target system 16” had theoretical or hypothetical systems added to it as part of the consolidation analysis, those would not be systems that are “already placed” on the target system.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 10,951,459 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,951,459 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00300 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 7
- 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. Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’570 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch and/or proximity sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46). Patent Owner does not identify a proposed level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’570 patent or identify any specific shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. Pet. 5. This assessment is consistent with the ’570 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying such standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). The parties do not identify any claim terms for construction. Pet. 15; see generally Prelim. Resp. Thus, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not provide any express constructions, and we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., 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)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,952,570 - Triller, Inc. v. Tiktok Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00181 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 19, 23, 24, or 28 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“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)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends that the PCT application does not include “anything that could reasonably be characterized” as disclosing the metadata limitation. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶ 81). Petitioner, however, does not elaborate or address any aspect of the PCT application’s disclosure. See id. Patent Owner argues that the PCT application discloses the metadata limitation. Prelim. Resp. 6–12. According to Patent Owner, the PCT application describes a mobile device receiving and displaying “descriptive information” about a track (such as the song title, artist, and duration) without downloading the track itself, and this “descriptive information” discloses the “track meta-data” recited in the claim. Id. at 8–11 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:27–5:9, 11:6–16, 13:14–21, 51:7–13, 91:7–10, 105:16–18, 116:1–10, 133:2–3, 134:10–15, 149:21–23, 149:25–150:3, 150:12–26, 152:1–9, 153, 156). In support, Patent Owner notes that the PCT application describes “[m]etadata” as “[i]ndividual items of data or collections of data, of,” among other things, mobile content such as “full music downloads.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1008, 13:14–21) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner further explains by asserting that “[t]he fact that the track metadata is provided as a search result, but not the music file itself, demonstrates” disclosure of the metadata limitation. Id. at 9. In addition, Patent Owner submits that the PCT application discloses “sharing” track information because users can send their playlists and recommendations to other users. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1008, 5:21–22, 7:2–4, 59:10–14, 61:15–28, 65:1–17, 66:18–9, 67:7–9, 101:17–102:13, 130:8–17, Figs. 84, 97, 106). On this record, we are persuaded that the PCT application discloses the metadata limitation, which (for purposes of this Decision) requires a software application that uses “track meta-data” that (1) exists separately from the music track, (2) exists separately in any way from other forms of metadata, and/or (3) is stored in a separate database. See supra § II.B (claim construction). In particular, Patent Owner persuasively shows that the PCT application discloses a mobile device application that uses “track meta-data” (e.g., attributes of music tracks, such as the song’s title, artist, and duration) stored on the mobile device while the corresponding track and its metadata remain separately stored on a remote server.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“2. Law on Written Description Support “It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the 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) (quoting In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “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. (second 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 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 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“connect these dots. For example, it is unclear whether Petitioner proposes a combination of Abrams’s web browser and Khedouri’s music application, or whether it instead proposes that one be replaced with the other. See id. at 53–54. Petitioner also does not address whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining a web browser and a music application. See id. Rather, Petitioner simply refers to combining “Khedouri’s music sharing functions” with “Abrams’ social networking functions” (id. at 54), which does not address the requirement that “a software application” meet these limitations. Moreover, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the functionality of Abrams and Khedouri. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (obviousness requires analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Liberally interpreting the relevant portion of the Petition, Petitioner contends that a motivation to combine is established because: (1) the references themselves provide the motivation to combine, (2) the proposed combination was desirable and predictable, (3) an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to add music to Abrams, and/or (4) an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to add Abrams’s social networking functions to Khedouri. See Pet. 53–54; see also supra § II.E.1 (reproducing relevant portion of Petition with corresponding reference numbers). We are not persuaded. themselves provide the requisite motivation. See Pet. 53. Abrams is directed to “connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 1; see also id. ¶ 36 (“What is needed is a system that allows individuals to replicate the process of developing personal relationships through social networks, using a computer system and database.”). Khedouri, on the other hand, is directed to “selecting, requesting, downloading, and playing audio” files on a user’s portable audio player device from a content delivery service. Ex. 1011, Abst., ¶ 3. Petitioner identifies (and we perceive) no disclosure in either reference that suggests their combination. See Pet. 53–54. Petitioner incorrectly implies that Khedouri “expands on [Abrams’s] ‘music theme.’” Id. at 53. Abrams states that a user can identify the user’s interests as well as favorite music, books, tv, and movies (Ex. 1009 ¶ 91, Fig. 2), and each of these are stored as a text field in Abrams’s database (id. ¶¶ 89, 91, Fig. 2). This is a passing reference to music, not a music theme. Petitioner also contends that both Abrams and Khedouri teach most limitations of the claim (Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1025, 120–123)), but even if that were true, it does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined them. Second, Petitioner’s assertions that the proposed combination would have been “desirable” and “predictable” are conclusory and entitled to little weight. See Pet. 54. Petitioner relies on Dr. Shamos’s testimony in support, but it similarly fails to provide analysis or evidence to support his conclusions. See Ex. 1025 ¶ 170. Accordingly, we assign little weight to that testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also TQ Delta, 942 F.3d at 1358. a desirable feature” and the combination would provide users “the ability to not only identify and publicize information about their favorite music on their profiles (and learn about others’ favorite music from others’ profiles) but to actually search for that music and be able to listen to it.” Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶ 170). Although this identifies vague benefits of a combination (i.e., sharing information and facilitating access to music), it fails to explain why an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to incorporate these benefits in Abrams’s social network. Petitioner also provides no evidence that an ordinary artisan would have had reasonable expectation of success in making this proposed combination. See id. at 53– 54. Given the specific facts and circumstances of this case, we are concerned that this rationale suffers from improper hindsight bias. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”); Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We have observed that the prejudice of hindsight bias often overlooks that the genius of invention is often a combination of known elements which in hindsight seems preordained.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).” slip op. at 24
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,294,430 - Triller, Inc. v. Tiktok Pte. Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,992,322 - Triller, Inc. v. Tiktok Pte. Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,648,132
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.