• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2026 · IPR2025-00220 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Wallen and Berggren because the combined teachings render the claimed subject matter obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction is wholly unsupported by, and inconsistent with, the language of independent claims 1, 7, and 13, and the aims of the ’670 Patent Specification. See Ex. 1001, 2:3– 25, 9:32–10:5, 12:51–67, 18:54–19:6, 19:26–42, 20:12–26. Moreover, the cited extrinsic evidence––testimony by Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Lomp–– does not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is internally inconsistent and also undermined by Dr. Lomp’s inconsistent deposition testimony. See Ex. 1036, 11:6–17, 12:9–12; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 40, 48. Similarly, the extrinsic evidence cited by Petitioner (e.g., Exs. 1037, 1038, 2009) undermines Patent Owner’s position emphasizing the intended recipient devices of SIB1. In summary, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction because it is unsupported by the claim language, the ’670 Patent Specification, and the cited extrinsic evidence. with the ordinary and customary meaning which does not include limiting SIB1 to an ordinary legacy SIB and excluding MTC specific SIBs or SIBs intended for MTC devices. In addition, we need not construe explicitly any other claim term or phrase. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. 868 F.3d at 1017 (“[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 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had a bachelor’s degree from an accredited program in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and at least two years of professional experience relating to wireless communication technology” and “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’670 Patent Specification and the prior art of record. slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “filing date. As explained above, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that Wallen is not prior art because the ’670 Patent is entitled to the earlier January 20, 2012, filing date of foreign priority application GB1201000. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). Patent Owner’s arguments fail to meet this burden of production because, aside from addressing a system information block 1, Patent Owner’s arguments do not substantively address how GB1201000 provides written description support for any other limitations of the claimed invention. See PO Resp. 43, 57. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the claimed invention in foreign priority application GB1201000, the burden of production did not shift back to Petitioner, and,” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “primary synchronization signal (PSS), a secondary synchronization signal (SSS), and a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) including a master information block (MIB).” See Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–75; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 77, 83–84). Petitioner implicitly acknowledges that Wallen does not expressly disclose a physical broadcast channel (PBCH), but relies on Berggren for confirming that the LTE standard specifies that a PBCH carries the MIB. See Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 74; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 73–75). According to Petitioner, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit Wallen’s MIB using a PBCH as taught by Berggren.” Pet. 43 (citing Pet. 33–38). In particular, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated for Wallen’s LTE system to utilize the LTE standard implementation details taught by Berggren,” and “it would have been predictable and beneficial for Wallen’s user equipment to receive the MIB in the [PBCH], as was standard in LTE.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58), 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). According to Petitioner, “the combination is nothing more than ‘the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.’” Pet. 38 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). Based on the entire record developed during trial, we are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wallen’s broadcast MIB with Berggren’s teachings of using a PBCH for transmitting broadcast MIBs. See Pet. 33–38; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,206,670 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,206,670
• Reolink Innovation Inc. / Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co., Ltd. v. Throughtek Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fendgo, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00114 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would have been obvious over DiPerna964 and Strack.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We determine below that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial. Thus, we do not reach the issue of whether the merits are compelling. CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022- 01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (Board must first address Fintiv factors 1–5, and should engage the compelling merits question only if that analysis favors discretionary denial) (“CommScope”). 7. Balancing the Fintiv Factors Weighing against exercising our discretion to deny institution is factor 3 involving the parties’ limited investment and lack of substantive orders in the District Court litigation. Factor 4 concerning the limited overlap of the issues in the two cases also weighs against discretionary denial. Only factor 5, that Petitioner and the defendant in the District Court litigation are the same party, weighs in favor of discretionary denial. Factor 1 concerning the absence of a stay in the District Court litigation, and factor 2 concerning the close proximity between the start of trial in the District Court litigation and the estimated deadline for the final written decision, are neutral on the facts of this case. We therefore determine that the balance of factors 1–5 weighs against discretionary denial. Accordingly, we do not consider the issue of whether compelling merits have been shown under factor 6. See CommScope, Paper 23 at 4–5.2” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1006, 23) (emphasis added). From this passage, we understand the “safety” switch to be “separate” from the panic button, not a part of it. This understanding is reinforced by claim 7 which depends from claim 1 and recites that the mobile device “further compris[es] a safety switch,” meaning it is a separate element from the panic button. Ex. 1001, 9:3–4. Thus, moving the safety switch into position readies the panic button, which is not the same as the panic button readying itself to perform functions in claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent. Patent Owner does not sufficiently address this issue in its assertions. See Prelim. Resp. 5–7. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosures elsewhere in the ’404 patent is likewise not persuasive. Prelim. Resp. 5–6. For example, the ’353 application mentions “ready” in relation to using a self-defense mechanism such as pepper spray, which has not been shown to be related to the panic button. Ex. 1006, 5, 9–10. Although Patent Owner relies on the ’353 application’s description of voice activation using a codeword, voice activation does not ready the panic button for activation to perform functions, but actually activates the panic button to perform those functions. Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 1006, 17). Petitioner thus met its burden here to demonstrate that claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent lack written description support for a panic button adapted to “ready itself” to perform the recited functions because the limitation is not present in the ’353 application to which the ’404 patent claims priority. Pet. 8–10. The burden of production thus shifted to Patent Owner to demonstrate that the ’353 application has written description support for this limitation, which it has not done on this record. Prelim. Resp. 5–7.” slip op. at 17

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

    “of the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that at least one of claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the ground set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute trial for all challenged claims on all grounds asserted by Petitioner. See SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). Our factual findings, conclusions of law, and determinations at this stage of the proceeding are preliminary, and based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims or to the construction of any claim term. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent is hereby instituted on all challenges to patentability set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 31

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

    “Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a POSITA would have combined DiPerna964 and Strack with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 16–18. DiPerna964 and Strack are directed to similar mobile devices for use in security and emergency situations. Id. at 16–17. Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that a POSITA would have regarded Strack’s arming and timer technique as an improvement that would have been useful with DiPerna964’s mobile device (at least in some circumstances) to provide the user with additional time to evaluate whether triggering the 911 call is warranted. Id. at 17–18. This amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, which is a recognized rationale for combining prior art references. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401, 417 (2007). Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has presented a reasonable likelihood that a POSITA would have combined DiPerna964 and Strack with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 16–18.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,265,404
• Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,681,466
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Ward Participations B.V.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 21, 2023 · PGR2022-00007 · APJ Thu A Dang · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: they lack written-description support, and the asserted combinations of Ellison and Muir, with Al-Salqan or Searle for dependent claims, render them obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “specific, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The test for sufficiency of support is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon “reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.” Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations,” wherein, “[w]hile the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). That is, “it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession” and “a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement.” Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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 22

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

    “vi. Proposed Combination of Ellison and Muir Petitioner contends that Ellison discloses “an isolated execution architecture that improves security in a computer system or platform by implementing several levels of hierarchy and normal and isolation execution modes for the operating system and processor.” Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:12–15, 2:40–61, Fig. 1). Although Petitioner acknowledges that Ellison “does not reveal details of [] a system or transaction between multiple parties,” Petitioner relies on Muir for such teaching. Id. at 47. According to Petitioner, a POSITA looking to implement Ellison’s isolated execution architecture in a computer with multiple devices “would have looked to Muir’s teachings to implement a secure electronic transaction between two parties,” because “both Ellison and Muir are related to providing improved security for transactions involving keys using cryptographic techniques.” Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:38–51; Ex. 1008, 7, 8, 11; Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). We agree with Petitioner’s motivation to combine the teachings of Ellison and Muir, as supported by Dr. Black’s testimony (Pet. 46–51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–71), and find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “a POSITA would not have looked to Muir to cure the deficiencies of Ellison.” PO Resp. 39. Although Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner fails to show with particularity the why and how required for its obviousness combinations” (PO Resp. 68), we agree with Petitioner’s contention that, in the combination of Ellison and Muir, “each device involved in a transaction would have been connected through a computer network such as Mui’s included Ellison’s isolated execution architecture and one or more parts of Muir’s system.” Pet. 48. We credit the testimony of Dr. Black as sufficient support for Petitioner’s contention, when he explains, “a POSITA would have viewed extension of Ellison’s system to include the multi-party transactions described by Muir to have been a natural and obvious extension,” wherein a “a POSITA would have been motivated to enable such multi-party transaction [] in Ellison’s system to increase the functionality and usefulness of Ellison’s system.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. Thus, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner “has not established its prima facie case.” PO Resp. 68.” slip op. at 44

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

    “We find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention which is directed to Ellison alone, and not to the combination of Ellison and Muir proposed by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 47. We agree with Petitioner’s contention that Ellison’s private key 204 “can be used ‘to encrypt a digest of a message producing a signature” (see Ex. 1006, 60–65 (“In the digital signature generation process, the protected private key 204 is used as an encryption key to encrypt a digest of a message producing a signature”)), wherein “Muir clearly discloses using a digital signature for transactions between two parties.” Pet. Reply 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:59–65; Ex. 1008, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 18; Ex. 1032 ¶ 29). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, we agree with Petitioner’s position regarding the combination of Ellison and Muir for teaching that “private key 204” is “for the protection of digital transactions involving two parties.” PO Resp. 47. Based on the complete record presented, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Ellison and Muir, wherein the combination of Ellison and Muir teaches “providing a private key in a memory of said electronic device,” the device,” the private key being “inaccessible to a user of said electronic device,” and “encrypted when the private key is stored in said memory,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,992,480 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,992,480
• Vmware, Inc. v. Cirba Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,951,459
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. 3g Licensing SAAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00639 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–25 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board denied the motion to amend because proposed substitute claims 26–50 would have been obvious over Oksala or Oksala and Yoshioka.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Our reviewing court has explained that “the level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “This reference point prevents these factfinders from using their own insight or, worse yet, hindsight, to gauge obviousness.” Id.” slip op. at 10

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

    “e. Conclusion For the reasons provided above, we are persuaded that each limitation of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Oksala. We are also persuaded that Oksala’s disclosure would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oksala, as Petitioner contends, to yield the subject matter of claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Oksala.” slip op. at 52

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

    “Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 35 and 43 would have been obvious over Oksala.” slip op. at 78

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “2. Indefiniteness In its Opposition, Petitioner contends the limitations “wherein each established data connection is a packet-switched connection; and wherein each requested data connection is a packet-switched connection,” as recited in substitute claim 26, and similarly recited in substitute claims 35 and 43, render the proposed substitute claims indefinite. MTA Opp. 12 (emphases added). First, according to Petitioner, the term “packet-switched connection” does not have a claim construction, which means that it can refer to two different types of packet-switched data (i.e., Layer 1 and packet network). Id. at 12. Second, Petitioner contends that there are two recitations of “a packet-switched connection,” making it “unclear if they are the same packet-switched connection or a different one.” Id. at 12–13. Third, Petitioner contends that the claims include “another antecedent issue” because “a wireless network” appears twice in the claim. Id. at 13.” slip op. at 81

  Patent outcomesUS 8,189,611 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,189,611
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. 3g Licensing S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00584 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16–19, 21, 22, 39, 40, and 42 are unpatentable under § 103: Meeting45 anticipates claims 16–19, 21, 22, and 39, and Meeting45 with Meeting45bis renders claims 40 and 42 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “In order to obtain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application, 35 U.S.C. § 120 requires that the earlier application include a disclosure that complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–2 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To comply with the written description requirement, a specification “must describe the invention sufficiently to convey to a person of skill in the art that the patentee had possession of the claimed invention at the time of the application, i.e., that the patentee invented what is claimed.” Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). The written description requirement “guards against the inventor’s overreaching by insisting that he recount his invention in such detail that his future claims can be determined to be encompassed within his original creation.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[O]ne skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). “Entitlement to a filing date extends only to the subject matter that is disclosed; not to that which is obvious . . . Therefore the parent application must actually or inherently disclose the elements of the later-” slip op. at 23

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Disclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded that the disclosures of the ’625 patent cited by Patent Owner “‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). “‘To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’ and must ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). “Disavowal requires that ‘the specification [or prosecution history] make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature,’ or is clearly limited to a particular form of the invention.” Id. at 1372 (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted).” slip op. at 15

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

    “We determine that the usage and description of the term E-AGCH in documents accompanying the 3GPP TS 25.211 v6.2.0 (2004-09) standard along with at least one later version––3GPP TS 25.211 v6.7.0 cited by Patent Owner in its infringement complaint (see, e.g., Ex. 1017, 3)––are consistent and that E-AGCH would have been known and understood by a POSITA to carry the meaning set forth therein as of the filing date of the application underlying the ’625 patent, March 31, 2005.10 We further conclude that one of skill in the art would have understood that the patentee used that term in the ’625 patent in accordance with the 3GPP’s definition.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “accessibility with respect to any of the cited references. See generally PO Resp. 17–18. For the reasons that follow, we find that Petitioner’s showing sufficiently demonstrates public availability and accessibility for Meeting45, Meeting39, and Meeting45bis prior to March 31, 2005. 1. Meeting45 Petitioner asserts that Meeting45 (Ex. 1004) “is a 3GPP change request document that was publicly available on the 3GPP FTP server no later than December 3, 2004.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 64, 77). In support of this assertion, Petitioner cites the Bishop Declaration, in which Mr. Bishop describes in detail how he searched for and found the Meeting45 document by navigating the 3GPP FTP website. Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 54–63. Based on this process, Mr. Bishop testifies that “by December 3, 2004, an interested POSITA using reasonable diligence could have located Meeting45 on the 3GPP website, downloaded the reference without providing any credentials, and disseminated the reference to others without restriction.” Id. ¶ 64. We have reviewed the relevant portions of Mr. Bishop’s Declaration and are persuaded that his testimony sufficiently demonstrates that Meeting45 was publicly available and accessible prior to March 31, 2005 (the earliest priority date to which the ’625 patent is entitled). See id. ¶¶ 54– 63; see also id. ¶¶ 55–57 (testimony as to availability and accessibility of attachment distributed via email and stored on an email list archive).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,551,625 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,551,625
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Ward Participations B.V.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2022 · PGR2022-00007 · APJ Thu A Dang · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–19 based on likely lack of written description and obviousness over Ellison and Muir, with Al-Salqan or Searle added for certain claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Section 324(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) as well as the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, for the reasons below, we determine that the information in the Petition satisfies the threshold provided in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) and we institute this proceeding.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther

    “not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). In other words, where the written description fails to disclose an element explicitly, “the applicant must show that any absent text is necessarily comprehended in the description provided and would have been so understood at the time the patent application was filed.” Id. at 1354–55 (emphases added). At this stage of the proceeding, we do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that authentication software has a “private key” that forms an “integral part of the authentication software component and/or is embedded therein” (Prelim. Resp. 13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:39–40)), in view of the cited section in the Detailed Description describing the authentication software as comprising the unique serial number, the unique software ID and/or a private encryption key, but only the unique serial number or the unique software ID is embedded therein. See Ex. 1001, 5:39–49. That is, we are unpersuaded at this stage of the proceeding that the person of ordinary skill in the art will directly and unambiguously deduce from the ’773 application as filed that the “private encryption key” is embedded in the authentication software, as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 13. Instead, we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that the ’480 patent (i.e., the ’773 application) merely teaches storing the digital signing algorithm in a secure part of the BIOS 44 but is silent as to storage of the private key. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:27–34, 13:31–44; Ex. 1003). As Petitioner contends, the” slip op. at 20

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

    “The Specification of the ’480 patent discloses secure area 62 only accessible to BIOS 44, comprising applications and storage locations not reported to operating system 48 (Ex. 1001, 8:62–9:1), wherein, as shown in Figure 3, secure area 62 comprises secure storage location 60, recovery application 56, and authentication software 54. Id. at 9:7–11. That is, the Specification shows “secure memory inaccessible to said operating system” as a location that holds software not accessible to operating system 48. Id. Nothing in the Specification, or the general knowledge in the art, limits “secure memory inaccessible to said operating system” to Ellison’s “isolated storage area 70,” or precludes Ellison’s “secure platform 200,” as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. In fact, nothing in the Specification or the general knowledge in the art limits the “storage” to any amount of time in the secure memory. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s apparent position that software that is loaded into a secure location of execution is not software that is “stored” in a “secure memory” location. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. In view of the Specification and the general knowledge in the art, we determine that the term “stored in said secure memory inaccessible to said operating system” encompasses being held in any secure location that is determination here is preliminary, and the parties are invited to address this claim construction issue at trial, if so desired.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted

    “ii. “providing a private key in a memory of said electronic device, said memory being a secure part of a Basic In Out System or any other secure location in said electronic device, which private key is inaccessible to a user of said electronic device, wherein the private key is encrypted when the private key is stored in said memory” (claim 1) Petitioner contends that Ellison’s “isolated execution regions ‘is accessible only to elements of the operating system and processor operating in isolated execution mode,’” and that “isolated mode applets 461 to 46K and their data are tamper-resistant and monitor-resistant from all software attacks from other applets and OS 12.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1006, 4:1–22). According to Petitioner, “[a] user is not an element of the operating system and processor operating in isolated execution mode, and therefore 6 The issue of whether the preamble is limiting need not be resolved at this stage of the proceeding because, regardless of whether the preamble is limiting, Petitioner shows sufficiently for purposes of institution, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that the combination of Ellison and Muir teaches a method for performing an electronic transaction between first and second transaction parties, as recited in the preamble. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (noting that we need only construe “only those terms that . . . are in controversy”). Ex. 1003 ¶ 92). Petitioner then contends that Ellison discloses “a secure platform 200 that ‘includes the OS nub 16, the processor nub 18, a key generator 240, . . . , all operating within the isolated execution environment.’” Pet. 58 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:25–32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 95). Petitioner also contends that “the private key 204 can be stored in the cryptographic key storage 155 and in a multiple key storage of the non-volatile flash memory 160,” and “only the OS nub 16 can retrieve the private key.” Id. at 59–60. According to Petitioner, because “the OS nub 16 is within the secure platform and isolated environment,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) that “the cryptographic key storage 155 and the non-volatile flash memory 160 are secure storage locations so that the private key 204 can be accessed securely by OS nub 16.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96). Thus, Petitioner contends that “Ellison explicitly teaches that the OS nub 16 and private key 204 shown in platform 200 all operate within the isolated execution environment,” which “would indicate to a POSITA that private key 204 is stored in a secure memory and is inaccessible to a user of said electronic device.” Id. Nevertheless, Petitioner contends that Muir “explicitly teaches a private key 167 stored in a restricted memory space 170 which is inaccessible to the operating system.” Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 1008, 7–9, 3). Petitioner then contends that Ellison’s OS nub 16 “retrieves the encrypted private key 204 and decrypts it for use in the isolated environment.” Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:33–65, 11:1–12:26). Thus, Petitioner contends that “Ellison and Muir render obvious the private key 204 being encrypted when stored in a secure memory (e.g.,” slip op. at 32

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,992,480
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2022 · PGR2021-00108 · APJ Aaron W Moore · PGR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable, including because the asserted combination did not link rule generation to the packet correlation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Obviousness Analysis A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, primarily: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.6 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–2, 7–8, 10, 12–13, and 17–18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 18–64. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2-3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’797 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. C.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Patent Owner argues that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “determining . . . a first plurality of log entries” and “determining . . . a second plurality of log entries” is “identifying” or “ascertaining” log entries.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he terms “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the first plurality of packets received by the network device,” and “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the second plurality of packets transmitted by the network device” (“provisioning rules”) . . . should be given their plain and ordinary meaning—rules configured to identify packets.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Neither party, however, argues that the prior art arguments presented in the Petition turn on the construction of these terms. Instead, it appears that they are raised as claim construction issues only because Petitioner is challenging the language under Section 112. We will discuss the Section 112 arguments below, but do not see a dispute about the constructions offered by the parties above the makes a difference in the prior art analysis and, therefore, do not construe these terms at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “respect to this limitation for several reasons, including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning” is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not “based on the determined correlation.” Prelim. Resp. 38. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the determined correlation, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the first host.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,931,797

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.