- Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,206,670 - 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,265,404 - Truist Bank v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · May 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00144 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Oakes supports the claimed mobile device, is not prior art, and the petition therefore did not meet the reasonable-likelihood threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes trial on behalf of the Director”).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Prelim. Resp. 24–26. We determine that this argument and evidence is more persuasive and better supported than Petitioner’s contrary arguments and evidence. We determine that Patent Owner’s position that a skilled artisan in the relevant time frame would have found clear support for the full-scope of the invention claimed including a “mobile device” as recited and construed as a “handheld computing device” is well-supported. In contrast, Petitioner’s argument and evidence are based on an improper claim construction and lack substantial supporting evidence. For these reasons, we determine that Oakes does provide written description support for “mobile device” as recited in the challenged claims of the ’432 patent and the ’432 patent is entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the application that issued as Oakes. As a result, Oakes is not prior art to the ’432 patent and all the challenges in the Petition fail because they rely on Oakes as prior art.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“On this record and for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we construe “mobile device” as “handheld computing device,” because both parties ask us to adopt the District Court’s claim construction. 8 We do not 8 Petitioner does not dispute that we should “adopt[ ] the claim constructions [Patent Owner] advanced and the Court adopted in [the PNC Litigation].” include the phrase “excluding laptops” as part of this construction as the arguments in support of this construction in the Petition are contradicted by the evidence and Petitioner has otherwise failed to support the inclusion of this phrase in the construction.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’432 patent and the cited prior art. For that reason, and in order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,482,432 - Cradlepoint, Inc. / Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. 3g Licensing SAAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,189,611 - Cradlepoint, Inc. / Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. 3g Licensing S.A.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,551,625 - 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 - PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00050 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–30 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted references qualified as prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356,1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“But, even accepting these premises, we disagree with the conclusion Petitioner asks us to draw from them. In particular, Petitioner appears to contend that we should find that the ’974 application does not provide written description support for the claims of the ’638 patent merely because the scope of the claims includes a configuration that is not expressly described in that document. See Pet. 15–16, 22. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“An applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); Application of Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the description requirement in section 112.”).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“D. Obviousness Grounds Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1–30 of the ’638 patent would have been obvious over various combinations of Oakes-I, Oakes-II, Medina, and Roach (collectively, “the asserted references”). Pet. 5, 32–100. Petitioner argues that the asserted references are prior art because the claims of the ’638 patent are not entitled to a priority date earlier than July 28, 2017. Id. at 4–5, 11–29. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of success because Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that the asserted references qualify as prior art. Prelim. Resp. 18–59. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art,8 and as a result, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that any claim would have been unpatentable based on the asserted references.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“In the first Joint Motion to Seal, the parties request entry of a Protective Order that is substantially the same as the Board’s Default Protective Order (see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide16 at 107–122 (App. B, Protective Order Guidelines and Default Protective Order)). Paper 9, 2.17 The parties also request sealing of Exhibit 2006 and sealing of portions of the Preliminary Response relating to that exhibit. Id. at 2–3. The portions of the Preliminary Response (Paper 11) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Preliminary Response filed as Paper 12. Based on the representations in the Joint Motion to Seal (Paper 9), the parties have shown good cause for entering the Protective Order and for sealing Exhibit 2006 and the identified portions of the Preliminary Response.” slip op. at 37
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,402,638 - Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,807,826
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.