- PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01489 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Cohen anticipates the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Identity of terminology is not required for a claim element to be met directly by the prior art. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted) (“[T]his is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”). For anticipation, we take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 13
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Wrinkl, Inc. v. Slack Technologies, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00620 (D. Del. May 23, 2024). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also states that a “second IPR was filed against the same patent in proceeding IPR2024-01490.” Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner does not argue that we should exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Petitioner uses more than one petition to challenge the ’731 patent. challenges the alleged priority date of the ’731 patent (IPR2024-01489) (‘First Petition’) and the second petition assumes that the Patent Owner’s claimed priority date is valid, and addresses prior art references predating that priority date (IPR2024-01490) (‘Second Petition’).” Ex. 1019, 1. In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary” including “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” CTPG 59. Such is the case here. Patent Owner does not file any Preliminary Response or other paper disputing Petitioner’s use of two petitions to challenge the claims of the ’731 patent. Based on the record before us, we consider the merits of both petitions because Petitioner’s stated reasons for filing two petitions are consistent with the CTPG. See generally Ex. 1019 (citing CTPG, 59 (“the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references)). C. The ’731 Patent” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner first must raise the issue of entitlement to a claimed priority date by “identifying, specifically, the features, claims, and ancestral application or applications allegedly lacking § 112 support for the claims based on the identified features.” Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 8 at 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014); Mission Integrated Techs., LLC v. Joshua Clemente, IPR2023-01285, Paper 16 at 18 (PTAB Feb. 23, 2024). Then, Patent Owner must make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier filing date(s), in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised by the petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“two years of experience in the graphical user interface field” or, alternatively “a master’s degree in computer science (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,973,731 - MPL Brands NV, Inc. v. Buzzballz, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01098 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims 1–6 based on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kick anticipates or renders them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the briefing and cited evidence of record in view of this standard, we institute an inter partes review. The following preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law are made solely to determine whether to institute review. Any final decision will be based on the full trial record.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“challenged claims 1, 2, and 6 lack adequate written description support in the ’934 application as filed. See Pet. 10–11. The specification, figures, and claims as originally filed do not disclose any volume limitations. See Ex. 1004 (’934 prosecution history), 1–17. Instead, the volume limitations recited in the challenged claims find their first support in Figure 7, which was filed over one month after the ’934 application was originally filed. Compare id. at 1–17, with id. at 34–56. The addition of new matter during prosecution of a patent application is prohibited. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) (“No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(f); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 608.04. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that “the new matter improperly added during the prosecution of the ’934 application cannot be considered part of the disclosure of the original, April 19, 2010 application and/or relied upon for claiming priority in subsequent applications.” Pet. 9.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“prosecution history), 34. We agree with Petitioner that “any claims in the subsequent applications that recite the new matter [are] entitled to, at the earliest, a priority date of February 25, 2020—the filing date of the ’195 application.” Pet. 10. As discussed above, challenged claims 1, 2, and 6 recite volume limitations that first find adequate support in Figure 7 of the ’195 application. Accordingly, on this record (and after consideration of Patent Owner’s arguments, discussed below), we determine that the priority date of the challenged claims is no earlier than the February 25, 2020, filing date of the ’195 application. Id. at 10–11. We agree with Petitioner that “Kick is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with respect to the claims of the ’904 patent because it was published more than one year before the February 25, 2020, priority date of the challenged claims.” Pet. 16.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“On this record, we find that the issues the parties raise regarding limitation [1z] are highly fact-intensive and implicate genuine issues of material fact that are more appropriately resolved on a fully-developed record. Accordingly, on this record we reserve judgment on these arguments, to allow the record to develop during trial.” slip op. at 30
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,738,904 - MPL Brands NV, Inc. v. Buzzballz, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · PGR2024-00035 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on all asserted grounds after finding the patent eligible for PGR and each challenged claim more likely than not unpatentable under at least one obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level). However, we find some ambiguity in the last sentence of Petitioner’s proposal (“A POSITA could substitute additional education for industry experience and vice versa.”) because the reference to “additional education” is not tethered to relevant education. Accordingly, we modify the last sentence of Petitioner’s proposal to clarify that the additional education must be relevant. Thus, we restate that for purposes of this Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’441 patent would have had: (i) an associate’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical, industrial or manufacturing engineering and (ii) at least two to three years of practical experience with designing or manufacturing mechanical products such as food or beverage packaging. A POSITA could substitute additional relevant education for practical experience and vice versa. B. Post-Grant Review Eligibility As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Petitioner has” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“In view of the evidence discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that there is adequate written description support for a transparent container body such that a depression in the container base is “visible through at least a portion of the container body,” as recited in claims 9, 10, 15, and 16. Prelim. Resp. 9. Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that the ’441 patent does not disclose “a transparent/translucent liquid” (Pet. 7), we again disagree. As Patent Owner points out, “the ’441 Patent mentions beverages, such as ‘beer and soda,’ as liquids for which the claimed container would be suitable.” Prelim. Resp. 10 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:25–27). Patent Owner demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that beer is typically see-through, or translucent.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 (Till) ¶ 24 (discussing an inspection apparatus for bottles that “are filled with a transparent liquid (e.g. beer, table water, mineral water, wine etc.)”); Ex. 2013 (Schnuckle) ¶ 8 (noting “translucent to transparent liquids such as water, soda, juice, or the like”)). We agree with Patent Owner that the ’441 patent’s identification of “beer and soda as beverages the described and claimed container was intended to hold” provides adequate written description support “for having transparent or translucent liquids within the container.”12 Prelim. Resp. 10. For the reasons discussed above, on this record Petitioner has not demonstrated that claims 9, 10, 15, and 16 include subject matter having a November 10, 2023, priority date. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the ’441 patent is eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 3(n)(1)(A).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. As an initial matter, Mr. Kirkpatrick is opining about a design patent application, and Patent Owner has not established that Mr. Kirkpatrick possesses the education and experience of a designer of ordinary skill in the art of ornamental aspects of containers for storing liquids or solids. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 5 (implying that Mr. Kirkpatrick is a generalist whose experience with design patents is in preparing formal drawings of designs invented by others).17 For this reason alone, on this record we accord Mr. Kirkpatrick’s declaration little weight on the question of whether the ’195 parent application provides adequate written description support for originally-filed Figure 2 of the ’813 design application. See, e.g., Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case . . . a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.”). Even if Mr. Kirkpatrick’s opinions were relevant, they would not change our conclusion regarding lack of adequate written description. Mr. Kirkpatrick attributes the differences between the drawings to “choices in drafting strategy of the respective illustrators,” such as how to use “contour lines to illustrate sloped surfaces” and how much detail to include for well-known features like pop-tops. See Ex. 2001 (Kirkpatrick Decl.) ¶¶ 19, 23–24, 28–32.18 These arguments are unavailing. First, there is no evidence of record indicating that the figures in the ’195 parent application and ’813 design application were created by different illustrators. Second, 17 Patent Owner also has not established that Mr. Kirkpatrick possesses the education and experience of a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’441 patent, as we have defined it here. Supra Section II.A. 18 Mr. Kirkpatrick’s analysis of a photograph of a can submitted by the applicant during prosecution (see Ex. 2001 (Kirkpatrick Decl.) ¶¶ 25–32) is additionally unavailing because there is no evidence of record indicating that the patent illustrator(s) used this particular photograph or the depicted can to create the patent illustrations. we agree with Petitioner that even if different illustrators employ different drafting strategies, this “does not absolve Patent Owner’s responsibility not to add new matter.” Prelim. Reply 6.” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Because the ’441 patent is eligible for post-grant review, we turn to an analysis of whether the Petition demonstrates “that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). C. Petitioner’s Grounds of Alleged Unpatentability As noted above in Section I.E, Petitioner asserts four different obviousness grounds. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not address the merits of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,932,441 - Sophos Ltd. / Sophos Inc. v. Open Text Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · PGR2023-00031 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable over the asserted obviousness or indefiniteness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’869 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 16). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 33. Considering the subject matter of the ’869 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for an ordinary level of skill, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification of the ’869 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the claims are directed to the classification stage, as they require extracting “a plurality of static data points” from an executable file and “generating a feature vector from [that] plurality of static data points using a classifier” (emphasis added). The claims also recite that the classifier has been “trained to classify” (emphasis added). Further, the claims recite that “features of the feature vector” are selectively turned on or off, indicating that the feature vector has been generated. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Ideses teaches or suggests a classification method in which one or more features of a feature vector generated from a plurality of static data points are selectively turned on or off based on the value of the static data point. As explained in the summary of Ideses above, Ideses describes “methods and systems for generating classifiers” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 2) in which “extracted features [may be] identified for pruning to generate the group of classifying features,” and “the selection [may be] based on identifying a classification effectiveness rank for each of the features of the training software applications” or “based on identifying resource requirements for each of the features of the training software applications.” See id. ¶¶ 98, 99. “[T]he group of classifying features [may be] selected based on the significance of the extracted features,” such that “[s]ignificant features, such as those that have a large effect on the classification outcomes, may be retained” and “[i]nsignificant features, such as those that have a small, negligible or no effect on classification outcome may be pruned.” Id. ¶¶ 101, 106. Petitioner argues that “Ideses explains that in the method depicted in Figure 1, ‘[t]he full feature list is optionally selectively pruned,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned off’ as required by [1.e],” and “[f]urther, ‘each feature of the group is selected from-the-ground-up; added to the group as opposed to removed from or retained within a larger group,’ i.e., ‘selectively turned on’ as required by [1.e].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Petitioner also argues element 1.e is taught by Ideses’s “approaches to pruning insignificant features,” which Petitioner argues are “to selectively includ[e]/exclud[e] features based on whether a feature coefficient ‘is within a predetermined range’ as required” by element 1.e. Id. at 34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 109–110). But all of the selection and pruning described in Ideses concerns the” slip op. at 22
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,409,869 - Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00102 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 5 and 9 are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b); the Board did not find claims 1–4, 6–8, and 10–28 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’459 patent’s description and Dr. Adnan’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary level of skill in the art does not require the high level of specialized knowledge of control systems suggested by Patent Owner. Moreover, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full record, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher is unqualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to have been a fracturing operator. Patent Owner’s proposed definition does not even require experience as a fracturing operator. See PO Resp. 22. Furthermore, Mr. Marscher testifies that he has extensive experience developing pumps for fracturing applications. Ex. 2027, 6:24–8:7. Mr. Marscher also testifies that he has experience with control systems relating to pumps and pumps units. Id. at 212:19–23. This testimony, as well as his declaration and curriculum vitae, show that Mr. Marscher has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher’s qualifications or experience provide reason to discount the weight associated with Mr. Marscher’s testimony.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“is the pump unit’s highest HHP output and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this value is the pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty. Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72, 123–124; Pet. 9– 10; Ex. 1036, 64:17–67:13, 119:17–120:11, 124:7–24, 198:9–200:9, 221:8– 222:15). However, even if Petitioner is correct that the “maximum power output value” is near or equivalent to a pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty, we are still not persuaded that the term “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value,” in conflict with the definition provided in the Specification. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is indefinite. Pet. Reply 3. For the reasons discussed below (see supra § II.I.1), we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the term “maximum intermittent power,” as defined in the Specification, is indefinite. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we maintain our prior construction of “maximum intermittent power” for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“5. Additional Terms We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; see also 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 15
Patent outcomesUS 10,907,459 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,907,459 - Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground; the Board found the prior art failed to establish key limitations and rejected the enablement and indefiniteness challenges.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In reply, Petitioner argues that the ’764 patent’s control system is not complex as there are no detailed algorithms, logic, or software. Pet. Reply 4. Instead, the control system merely raises or lowers power of the pumps in accordance with the demand HHP of the job design. Id. (citing Ex. 1036, 97:15–98:18, 98:21–99:25, 100:1–101:25, 102:2–7, 115:4–9, 115:24–116:4, 116:17–22; Ex. 1001, 5:2–6, 6:36–7:7, 10:4–64). According to Petitioner, this “rudimentary control concept” does not necessitate the higher skill level proposed by Patent Owner. Id. Petitioner further notes that Dr. Adnan testifies that “a mechanical engineer who has worked in the industry developing programming and control systems could fall within this definition,” and the person of ordinary skill in the art “is ‘just a specifier.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 2003 ¶ 22; Ex. 1036, 161:21–164:18). Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’764 patent’s description and Dr. Adnan’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary level of skill in the art does not require the high level of specialized knowledge of control systems suggested by Patent Owner. Moreover, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full record, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher is unqualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to have been a fracturing operator. Patent Owner’s proposed definition does not even require experience as a fracturing operator. See PO Resp. 20–21. Furthermore, Mr. Marscher testifies that he has extensive experience developing pumps for fracturing applications. Ex. 2027, 6:24–8:7. Mr. Marscher also testifies that he has experience with control systems relating to pumps and pumps units. Id. at 212:19–23. This testimony, as well as his declaration and curriculum vitae, show that Mr. Marscher has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher’s qualifications or experience provide reason to discount the weight associated with Mr. Marscher’s testimony.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In its Reply, Petitioner argues that the maximum power output value is the pump unit’s highest HHP output and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this value is the pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72, 123–124; Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1036, 64:17–67:13, 119:17–120:11, 124:7–24, 198:9–200:9, 221:8–222:15). However, even if Petitioner is correct that the “maximum power output value” is near or equivalent to a pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty, we are still not persuaded that the term “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value,” in conflict with the definition provided in the Specification. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is indefinite. Pet. Reply 3. For the reasons discussed below (see supra § II.I.1), we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the term “maximum intermittent power,” as defined in the Specification, is indefinite. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we maintain our prior construction of “maximum intermittent power” for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“3. Additional Terms We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. 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 13
Patent outcomesUS 10,815,764 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,815,764 - Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00093 · APJ Ken B Barrett · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–10, 14, 15, and 18–25 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 7, 11–13, 16, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Level 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Petitioner contends: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “POSA”)] at the time of the earliest claimed filing date of the ’614 Patent would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, or a related/equivalent field and at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in electronic payment systems. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–6). Patent Owner affirmatively states that it does not dispute Petitioner’s asserted educational background of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed number of years of experience, instead contending that “the claims are patentable regardless of the number of years of work experience a POSA would have had.” Id. (citing Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 49–58). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction disputes to find that Petitioners have failed to satisfy their burden of proof.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner goes on to state its agreement with Petitioner’s proposed construction for the “identifying” limitation (id. at 9) and indicate its disagreement with certain of Petitioner’s proposals (id. at 9–14). Patent Owner confirmed at the oral argument that no claim term needs to be construed to reach a dispositive issue. Tr. 33:23–34:5. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes.” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“All of the claimed method steps of claim 1 occur “at the mobile device” (element 1.1), and the method includes a step of enabling user interaction with the user interface to complete the vending transaction (element 1.9). Id. at 46:61–65, 47:24–28. Claim 1 does not recite completing the purchase. The ’614 patent describes a commercial transaction completed at the payment accepting unit (i.e. the vending machine), not at the mobile device. Ex. 1001, 7:15–19; see also id. at 16:46–50; 17:57–59; 19:17–20; 19:35–38. We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that the claimed method does not require completing or conducting the transaction, but only enabling the completion of the transaction. On this complete record, we are persuaded that the elements block quoted above recite the concept of identifying a merchant and enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant. See Pet. 20 (arguing that the claimed method “is no less abstract than a customer noticing a store, making a purchase, and receiving a receipt.”); Pet. Reply 5 (arguing that the claim describes “nothing more than a customer noticing and identifying a store amongst multiple stores based on the unique visual image of that store, entering the store and communicating with the merchant, making a purchase, and receiving a receipt—all while using conventional tools.”). In particular, claim 1 recites a step for identifying a merchant based on its advertised presence—identifying a nearby vending machine that is available to accept payment from a mobile payment application, with that identifying involving the broadcasting of predefined radio messages.8 Claim 1 also recites steps for enabling completion of a purchase from the merchant— establishing a communication connection between the user’s device and the vending machine; displaying an interface that allows a user to select a vending machine, to trigger payment for the vending transaction, and to enable the completion of the transaction; and updating the user interface after receiving information from the vending machine regarding the transaction (which, as indicated by dependent claim 3, may be information indicating that the vending transaction was completed). Our slight revision of the abstract idea from what we previously stated in our Institution Decision does not impact the patentability analysis. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptMixed
“As discussed above, the Specification indicates that the short-range communication between the vending machine and mobile device can be not only conventional technologies such as Bluetooth, near-field communication (NFC), and radio frequency identification (RFID), but also could be “any wired or wireless technology that could be used to communicate a small distance (approximately a hundred feet or closer) that is known.” Ex. 1001, 9:57–67. The Specification ties that technology to the “broadcast” in claim 1 (id. at 47:2–5). For example, the Specification explains that “[e]ach adapter module 100 [of the vending machine] advertises its presence by broadcasting signals (advertising broadcast signals) to mobile devices in the zones 102, 104, 106.” Id. at 10:43–45. “The outermost range is the Bluetooth range 106 . . . [and] is the area in which the adapter module 100 is able to broadcast its presence.” Id. at 18:29–33. Further, Dr. Shamos testified that the Bluetooth protocol requires that two devices wishing to interact with each other identify themselves to each other. Ex. 1030, 102:3– 24. Dr. Shamos also testified that the Low prior art reference discloses that a vending machine identifies itself to the user. Id. at 100:9–20; see Ex. 1007, 2:25–28 (Low stating that, “in some embodiments, multiple machines may send their unique identifiers, such that the user is able to select one or more machines to purchase from.”). Thus, the abstract idea of identifying a merchant is implemented by nothing more than well-known, routine, and conventional wireless communications.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 10,891,614 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,891,614 - Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · PGR2022-00035 · APJ Ken B Barrett · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any of claims 1–17 was unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that, if unrebutted, it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’580 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or another degree related to electromechanical systems, as well as at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in electronic payment systems.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that, “[u]nless otherwise noted, Petitioners submit that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning since the claim terminology appears to be the same as that used in the [Multi-Drop Bus] protocol.” Pet. 28. Patent Owner does not propose any constructions, asserting that “the Board need not reach any claim constructions in order to deny this petition.” Prelim. Resp. 12. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“in Anderson of a mobile device making, or the receipt from a mobile device of, a request to access peripheral device-generated signals. See Prelim. Resp. 17–24; see, e.g., id. at 17 (“Petitioners point to no evidence that any external device in Anderson ever requests access to the signals generated by the peripheral.”). We find this argument persuasive. Petitioner, in the section for “receiving” limitation 1.5(f), cites paragraph 44 of Anderson several times. See Pet. 36–39. That paragraph concludes with the statement: The IC 125 may also include a modem (not shown) to display content on external devices such as cellular phones via cellular network or any other network know[n] in the art. Thus, in one implementation, a user may receive nutritional information or balance information on his cell phone. Ex. 1005 ¶ 44. That is a disclosure of data flowing to the cell phone in the form of content to display, and it is ambiguous as to what component could be said to have requested that data flow. Limitation 1.5(f) recites data flow in the opposite direction, from the mobile device, and pertains to a specific message—“a request to access signals generated by the first peripheral device.” Ex. 1001, 53:22–24. Petitioner does not explain adequately how the disclosure in Anderson’s paragraph 44 could support a finding that there was received, from the cell phone, a request to access signals generated by a peripheral device. See, e.g., Pet. 36–37 (quoting Anderson’s paragraph 44).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,074,580 - 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 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00300 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’570 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch and/or proximity sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46). Patent Owner does not identify a proposed level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’570 patent or identify any specific shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. Pet. 5. This assessment is consistent with the ’570 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying such standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). The parties do not identify any claim terms for construction. Pet. 15; see generally Prelim. Resp. Thus, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not provide any express constructions, and we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,952,570
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.