• SAP America, Inc. v. Cyandia, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2024-01433 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 23, 29, 35, and 36 are unpatentable as obvious over the PCT Publication and Austin-Lane.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like, and/or four or more years of experience in server-based applications” and that “[a]dditional experience may make up for a lack of education and vice versa.” PO Resp. 9. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, we adopt it and use “skilled artisans” to refer to people with such skill at the time the invention was filed. We do not perceive a substantive distinction between the parties’ definitions, but note that Petitioner’s definition provides more detail about the capabilities of skilled artisans. Also, the level of ordinary skill in the art can be evidenced by the references cited, and we find it commensurate with the cited references in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9

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

    “device indicated by the session data” encompasses “determining a notification method based on” session data indicating the current state of the external device, where the current state of the device encompasses an online state as well as an offline state. See Pet. 53–54; Tr. 55:3–10 (The Board: “Are there any other states of an external device other than online or offline?” Patent Owner: “As far as I know, Your Honor, those are the only two[.]”), Tr. 65:24–66:1 (The Board: “When the claim says current state, they mean it’s online or offline?” Petitioner: “Correct.”), Tr. 20:23–21:8. The specification is consistent with the plain language of the claim in disclosing two examples of the claimed “current state,” namely, online and offline. Ex. 1101, 21:1–4. The specification discloses that the notification manager “queries session manager 456 to determine the user’s connectedness.” Id. at 21:6–8. The specification discloses that if the user is “online, notify by, for example, the user’s active session. If offline, notify by, for example, a txt [sic] message, call the user’s landline, call a friend of the user, and the like.” Id. at 21:1–4, 23:28–31.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Patent Owner’s expert witness, Dr. Goodrich, show written description support for providing a notification to an active external device, Patent Owner has not cited any portion of the 2009 Parent, nor any portion of the testimony of Dr. Goodrich, to show that the 2009 Parent provides written description support for determining a notification method by which to provide an alert to an external device based on the current state of the external device as offline. We highlight that Paragraphs 130 and 131 of the 2011 CIP Application disclose offline notification preferences for determining a notification method by which to provide an alert to an external device based on the current state of the external device as offline. Ex. 1110 ¶¶ 130–131. Specifically, paragraphs 130 and 131 describe that: the notification manager of the eventing and alerting subsystem 452 queries the configuration server 454 for the user's notification preferences and correlates these notification preferences with session manager 456 to determine the best notification method. That is, the notification manager queries the configuration server 454 and determines, for example, that the user has certain online notification preferences and certain offline notification preferences. If online, notify by, for example, the user's active session. If offline, notify by, for example, a txt message. . . . The notification manager of the eventing and alerting subsystem 452 then queries session manager 456 to determine the user's connectedness. Id. That is, if the user’s connectedness, or “current state” of the claimed external device, is offline, and the user’s offline notification preferences are “notify by txt message,” the notification manager will determine that the notification method for the external device having a current state of offline is by txt message. See id. Thus, the 2011 CIP Application describes a notification manager that queries a session manager to determine whether an external device is offline, and if the external device is offline, determines a notification method for providing an alert on the external device based on the current status of the external device as offline and the user’s offline notification preferences. Although we find this written description support for the determining limitation in the 2011 CIP Application, we do not find this written description support in the 2009 Parent.” slip op. at 25

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

    “As to the “determining a notification method” limitation (1.10), Petitioner asserts that Austin-Lane teaches determining: (1) the user device(s) to send the notification to (e.g., phone, PDA, notebook computer, desktop computer); (2) the communication protocol to use to send the notification, i.e., how to send the notification (e.g., SMTP (for email), SMS (for texts), HTTP (for web browsers)); and (3) the type of alert to provide, i.e., how to present the notification, (e.g., text, an icon, a pop-up window, a video, an email, an audible or tactile alarm), based on the current state of the at least one external device indicated by the session data (“presence information”), which may include whether and on which device(s) the user is online and/or whether and on which applications the user has an active session. Id. at 53 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 4, 5, 29, 32, 33, 39, 46, 48, 61, 79, Fig. 1). We highlight that paragraph 61 of Austin-Lane discloses that: The type preferences 650 may include preferences for various notification types. . . . [A]uction alert #1 660 defines the following delivery precedence 663: (1) a web browser (if the user is online), (2) an IM client (if the user is online), (3) a mobile phone #1, (4) a PDA, (5) a mobile phone #2, (6) a pager, and (7) an email inbox. Ex. 1105 ¶ 61; see id. ¶¶ 74–77 (Describing that one of several notification methods for delivering an alert to a user’s device is determined based on the current state of the user’s device as online or offline). Thus, Austin-Lane describes determining a notification method by which to provide an alert on an external device based on the current state of the external device as online as well as offline.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,751,948 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,751,948
• Reolink Innovation Inc. / Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co., Ltd. v. Throughtek Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00509 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Throughtek-2012 and the Lorex Video; claims 1–3, 6, 10, 12–14, 17, and 18 are also unpatentable under two other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Bims, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’842 patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of work experience with network and communication technologies. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 15–16). Patent Owner does not provide any proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’842 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts “no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 55; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 701 Fed. Appx. 946, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Petitioner states “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1303; 37 C.F.R. §42.100). Patent Owner presents no proposed claim constructions. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS RE47,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• SAP America, Inc. v. Cyandia, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01433 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 23, 29, 35, and 36 based on the PCT publication and Austin-Lane under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation will eliminate the overlap between this proceeding and invalidity at the district court. Unlike the other, related IPRs for which we discretionarily deny review (e.g., IPR2024-01432, -01495, & -01496), this proceeding does not involve references that fundamentally convey the same information as may be presented as system art in the Texas litigation. In light of the stipulation and nature of the asserted ground, we conclude that this ground strongly favors institution.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We conclude that the claim language reads on Austin-Lane’s disclosure of determining “a presentation method of the notification” such as “using an instant message to the notebook computer” (Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 39, 46), in combination with teachings regarding the device to which the notification is sent and the protocol used to deliver it. We further conclude that Petitioner has provided an adequate reason that skilled artisans would have looked to Austin-Lane’s teachings and combined them with the system described in the PCT publication, as discussed. We have further reviewed the uncontested aspects of the challenge to claim 1 (Pet. 43–58) and determine that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail proving obviousness of claim 1. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to unpatentability of at least one claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 23, 29, 35, and 36 of the ’948 patent is instituted on the grounds raised in the Petition; and” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of filing “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, with two or more years of experience developing and implementing graphical user interfaces for controlling server-based applications, including handling asynchronous notifications generated by those applications and web services, such as portal systems, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience” and “would have been familiar with common approaches for presenting information on a graphical user interface, including various layouts for presenting multiple elements, such as icons, widgets, windows, etc.” Pet. 14–15. Petitioner describes further capabilities that such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. Id. at 15–16. Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like, and/or four or more years of experience in server-based applications” and that “[a]dditional experience may make up for a lack of education and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, we adopt it and use “skilled artisans” to refer to people with such skill at the time the invention was filed. We do not perceive a substantive distinction between the parties’ definitions, but note that Petitioner’s definition provides more detail about the capabilities of skilled artisans. Should either party believe that the definition of ordinary skill in the art affects a disputed issue in the trial, it should point out how and identify any potential dispute about the level of skill.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We do not agree. Petitioner notes that certain disclosures added to the April 2011 CIP application describe a “notification manager” to “determine the best alert notification method.” Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1110 ¶ 131; citing id. ¶¶ 90–93, 130–132, 145–147, 160). That does not mean that Petitioner construes the claim language to require determining the best method, only that disclosing a mechanism that “determine[s] the best alert notification method” provides written-description support for a requirement to “determin[e] a notification method.” Petitioner is clear in its position that the May 2009 application “does not describe how to determine a notification method or how to use ‘session data’ in the manner required by this claim limitation.” Pet. 27–28. Patent Owner asserts that the May 2009 application discloses “determining a notification method” through a channel alert server that can “determine the active devices of the subscriber . . . to provide a visual or auditory alert in the channel.” Prelim. Resp. 32 (quoting Ex. 1106 ¶ 39). That disclosure appears to address the claim language requiring an alert “based on the current state of the at least one external device indicated by the session data.” It does not, however, address the claim language “determining a notification method.” Patent Owner recognizes that Petitioner asserts disclosures in the prior art for “determining which devices to send the alert to, the protocols used to send the alert, and how alerts are presented.” Id. at 34 (emphasis omitted). But when Patent Owner asserts that the May 2009 application discloses determining how alerts are presented, it points to paragraphs that do not support the assertion. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 23, 39). The first, paragraph 23, states that a “trigger may cause the information channel to change its appearance or to take other actions that may be implemented by the developer” and that “one action that may be implemented is to provide a notification to the user.” Ex. 1106 ¶ 23. Nothing about that indicates the system determines how an alert is presented. The second, paragraph 39, states that the channel alert server may “provide a visual or auditory alert in the channel” and that the “alert can appear as defined on other platforms.” Nothing about that indicates the system determines how an alert is presented. Patent Owner has not shown how the May 2009 application discloses a determining a notification method, as claimed. In Patent Owner’s view, Petitioner admits that the May 2009 application (which is the same as the asserted PCT publication) describes determining a delivery mechanism because Petitioner compares it to Austin-Lane, stating that the PCT publication “already includes a channel alert server that determines the active devices of the user and delivers an alert to the user’s device” and “discloses setting the same type of alert (stock alert) and presenting it in the same way (visually) as Austin-Lane.” Prelim. Resp. 35 (quoting Pet. 54) (emphasis omitted). But simply delivering an alert does not necessarily mean the notification method for that alert was determined. We conclude that Petitioner’s statement does not show the PCT publication discloses “determining a notification method” as claimed.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,751,948
• Apple Inc. v. Aire Technology LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00188 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under the stated obviousness grounds; the motion to amend with substitute claims 23–26 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not accord the testimony of Dr. Phinney little or no weight simply because it matches what Petitioner states in the Petition. The Xerox case cited by Patent Owner does not require or indicate otherwise. See Xerox at 1517 (noting that the deficiencies with expert testimony are that they are conclusory and lacking supporting evidence or technical reasoning.). Dr. Phinney’s testimony apprises us of why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the assertions made in the Petition, and his testimony is supported by evidence. We find that the declarations of Dr. Phinney are based on specific factual disclosures in the evidence of record. Therefore, we credit Dr. Phinney’s declaration testimony for the matters asserted based on the evidence and technical reasoning provided therein. Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, we” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “knowledgeable and familiar with the smart card and Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) arts. Pet. 13. Petitioner states that such a “person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the electrical engineering field. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill. See generally, PO Resp. 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’249 patent has an effective filing date prior to the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103. 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,824,064 (Ex. 1005) 3 Japanese Paten Application No. 2000-163539A (Ex. 1006) 4 RFID Handbook: Radio-Frequency Identification Fundamentals and Applications, Klause Finkenzeller, 1999 (Ex. 1007) 5 Smart Card Handbook: Third Edition, Wolfgang Rankl, 2003 (Ex. 1008) references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Further, although Patent Owner is correct in stating that Guthery discloses an embodiment of a request-to-send packet that includes size information, we do not agree that Guthery requires this information to be included in the request-to-send packet. Rather, we agree with Petitioner, that Guthery’s description of a request-to-send packet as shown in Figure 8, which does not include information about the size of the message, indicates that the size information is not required by the request-to-send packet in at least some embodiments of Guthery. Ex. 1005, 8:65–9:12, Fig. 8; see id. at 8:25–29 (The “present invention is not limited to the packet types discussed and in fact assumes that new types can and will be defined in the future as needed.”); 7:43–50 (“In one particular embodiment,” packets have a fixed number of bytes, but “in other embodiments, packet types may have different sizes.”). We agree with Petitioner, that Guthery discloses multiple embodiments, and the combination made by Petitioner relies on the embodiments shown in Figures 14 and 15, where the requested application only needs two buffers and therefore would know, without receiving information from the request-to-send packet, to ask for two buffers. Ex. 1005, 12:19–59. We find that a person of ordinary skill, in combining the teachings in Guthery with Nozawa to identify and initialize an application most likely to be selected by the smart card reader, would rely on (a) information about the size of a message as shown in Figure 8, (b) Guthery’s teaching of an application programmed to determine its own memory requirements (Ex. 1005, 9:25–31), and (c) Guthery’s teaching of an application that only needs two buffers as shown in Figures 15A-15D, to preemptively transmit a permission-to-send packet from the application to the reader without waiting to receive the request-to-send packet from the reader, to yield the benefit of improving efficiency and reducing latency as taught by Nozawa. See Phinney Decl. ¶¶ 55 (testifying that Guthery’s system would preemptively prepare the buffers and transmit the permissionto-send packet without waiting to receive the request-to-send packet).” slip op. at 17

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “In light of the full record before us, including Patent Owner’s arguments at the Oral Hearing, we now consider whether the proposed amended claim properly encompasses a device other than the reader performing the claimed selection. We agree with Petitioner’s contention, that the “claim doesn’t tell us . . . which element performs the selection,” and that “[t]his difference . . . divorces the claim from the functionality described in the specification.” Opp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002, 290 (Spec. ¶ 21)). Dr. Phinney’s testimony supports this contention. Ex. 1026 ¶ 12. We do not give weight to the arguments by Patent Owner’s attorney at the Oral Hearing, because attorney argument cannot take the place of objective evidence. Gemtron Corp., 572 F.3d at 1380. This is especially true here, where the specification discloses that the reader makes the selection, but does not disclose that any other device makes or would be capable of performing the selection. Patent Owner has not shown, nor do we find, support in the disclosure of the ’706 patent for a device other than the reader performing or capable of performing a selection. Thus, based on Patent Owner’s position that the proposed claim amendment would encompass non-reader devices making the selection, the proposed amendment adds new matter and is impermissible. See Gentry Gallery Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 supporting disclosure, and therefore . . . a narrow disclosure will limit claim breadth.”). Accordingly, Patent Owner has not shown, nor do we find, support for “wherein after selection of one of the plurality of applications, subsequent communication between the reading device and the selected application takes place without requiring any further steps” as recited in independent proposed substitute claims 23, 25, and 26. Due to the lack of support in the original disclosure of the ’706 patent for this limitation, proposed substitute claims 23, 25, and 26, and claim 24 by virtue of its dependency from claim 23, seek to introduce new subject matter.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,581,706 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,581,706
• Apple Inc. v. Aire Technology LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2022-01137 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; the motion to amend with proposed substitute claims 23–26 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “knowledgeable and familiar with the smart card and Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) arts. Pet. 13. Petitioner states that such a “person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the electrical engineering field. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill. See generally, PO Resp. 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’249 patent has an effective filing date prior to the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103. 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,824,064 (Ex. 1005) 3 Japanese Paten Application No. 2000-163539A (Ex. 1006) 4 RFID Handbook: Radio-Frequency Identification Fundamentals and Applications, Klause Finkenzeller, 1999 (Ex. 1007) 5 Smart Card Handbook: Third Edition, Wolfgang Rankl, 2003 (Ex. 1008) references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, 1994). Petitioner submits that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction. Pet. 13–14. Although we may discuss the scope of the claim language during our analysis, we agree that no specific construction is necessary for us to reach our decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not accord the testimony of Dr. Phinney little or no weight simply because it matches what Petitioner states in the Petition. The Xerox case cited by Patent Owner does not require or indicate otherwise. See Xerox at 1517 (noting that the deficiencies with expert testimony are that they are conclusory and lacking supporting evidence or technical reasoning.). Dr. Phinney’s testimony apprises us of why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the assertions made in the Petition, and his testimony is supported by evidence. We find that the declarations of Dr. Phinney are based on specific factual disclosures in the evidence of record. Therefore, we credit Dr. Phinney’s declaration testimony for the matters asserted based on the evidence and technical reasoning provided therein.” slip op. at 23

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

    “discloses an embodiment of a request-to-send packet that includes size information, we do not agree that Guthery requires this information to be included in the request-to-send packet. Rather, we agree with Petitioner, that Guthery’s description of a request-to-send packet as shown in Figure 8, which does not include information about the size of the message, indicates that the size information is not required by the request-to-send packet in at least some embodiments of Guthery. Ex. 1005, 8:65–9:12, Fig. 8; see id. at 8:25–29 (The “present invention is not limited to the packet types discussed and in fact assumes that new types can and will be defined in the future as needed.”); 7:43–50 (“In one particular embodiment,” packets have a fixed number of bytes, but “in other embodiments, packet types may have different sizes.”). We agree with Petitioner, that Guthery discloses multiple embodiments, and the combination made by Petitioner relies on the embodiments shown in Figures 14 and 15, where the requested application only needs two buffers and therefore would know, without receiving information from the request-to-send packet, to ask for two buffers. Ex. 1005, 12:19–59. We find that a person of ordinary skill, in combining the teachings in Guthery with Nozawa to identify and initialize an application most likely to be selected by the smart card reader, would rely on (a) information about the size of a message as shown in Figure 8, (b) Guthery’s teaching of an application programmed to determine its own memory requirements (Ex. 1005, 9:25–31), and (c) Guthery’s teaching of an application that only needs two buffers as shown in Figures 15A-15D, to preemptively transmit a permission-to-send packet from the application to the reader without waiting to receive the request-to-send packet from the reader, to yield the benefit of improving efficiency and reducing latency as taught by Nozawa. See Phinney Decl. ¶¶ 55 (testifying that Guthery’s system would preemptively prepare the buffers and transmit the permissionto-send packet without waiting to receive the request-to-send packet).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,581,706 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,581,706
• Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00972 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable because Speight anticipates them; the Board found Peisa anticipation and Peisa–Heo obviousness unproven for the challenged claims in those grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contention or propose a level of skill. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9

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

    “agreement that this claim term should be read as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.” Dec. 11. The parties do not challenge this construction in the Patent Owner Response, Reply, or Sur-reply. On the complete record, we construe “wherein resources are allocated for data of each channel having a second parameter above zero prior to another channel’s data for transmission having a third parameter less than or equal to zero” as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.”” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition is required to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner argued in the Petition that “as properly construed, the claimed ‘first parameter,’ ‘second parameter,’ ‘third parameter,’ and ‘fourth parameter’ are four different parameters.” Pet. 17–18. In the Institution Decision, Petitioner prevailed on that point and “we agree[d] with Petitioner that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels.” Dec. 14. Patent Owner “relie[d] on the Board’s construction ‘that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels,’” and proposed distinct parameters in the Specification that it alleges are examples of second and third parameters, albeit not the same two parameters proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 9, 29. Petitioner now proposes new constructions for the second and third parameters that would limit those parameters to the two examples it advanced in the Petition and improperly supports these new constructions with new expert testimony and an exhibit from the prosecution of a later patent. Reply 20–25; Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29; Ex. 1038. See also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”)10 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). As Patent Owner observes (Sur-reply 10 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 21), it has no opportunity to introduce rebuttal evidence contesting the new constructions. See TPG 73–74 (Nov. 2019) (“The sur-reply may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the crossexamination of any reply witness. Sur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony.”). We agree with Patent Owner that it would be unfair to consider Petitioner’s new construction. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”). Thus, Petitioner has forfeited its new claim construction arguments and they will not be considered. See TPG 74 (“While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.”). Moreover, these arguments would be unpersuasive even if considered. Petitioner has, at most, cited description in the Specification to show that its identified second and third parameters are examples corresponding to the recited second and third parameters. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 84–95. This description does not define the second and third parameters nor purport to exclude from the claims any parameter that would otherwise meet the language of the claims. The prosecution history to which Petitioner cites, that of a child application, took place after the prosecution of the ’466 patent and thus, does not constitute a definition or disclaimer of subject matter for claims of the ’466 patent. In any case, the brief argument in the cited response to office action, that “[i]n the algorithm, the first value is provided by the wireless network for each of a plurality of buffers where the buffer having the second value above a threshold transmits data first,” does not define the second and third parameters, disavow any values from those parameters, or even discuss the third parameter. Ex. 1038, 12. Petitioner’s extrinsic evidence, Dr. Akl’s testimony, does little more than repeat the arguments in the Reply and, thus, is of little value. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29. In sum, we maintain our construction that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels. Under this construction, RAAUq” and RAAUq’, respectively, could potentially be second and third parameters, as could RAAUq’ and RAAUq”, respectively, as long as they satisfy the rest of the pertinent language of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 15

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “production, we still would find that a skilled artisan would not have been able to ascertain from the disclosure in the ’421 application that RAAUq’ could take values less than zero. Instead, even if we were to credit Dr. Lomp’s testimony, to conclude that RAAUq’ can take negative values, a skilled artisan would need to program computer software to simulate the ’421 application’s algorithm and correctly choose starting parameters and other context variables without guidance from the description in the ’421 application. This case is similar to that in New Railhead, where the written description was insufficient because “one of ordinary skill in the art must first make the patented invention before he can ascertain the claimed features of that invention.” 298 F.3d at 1295. This case also is similar to Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, in which an application’s written description was insufficient because assumptions and starting variables were not knowable from the disclosure in the application. 849 F.3d at 1058. Thus, even if we were to conclude that Patent Owner has met its burden of production, a preponderance of the evidence shows that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for Alternative A. In sum, we conclude that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for the challenged claims and that, therefore, Speight is prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 9,681,466 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,681,466
• Walmart Inc. / Current Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Power Concepts, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00569 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend proposing claims 15–28 and the motion to exclude are denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “of the claimed “light emitting diode.” Looking at the intrinsic evidence, neither the claim nor the specification defines the light emitting diode as including an integrated lens. With respect to Dr. Bretschneider’s analysis of Dowling’s lens described in paragraph 24, we disagree with Dr. Bretschneider’s conclusion that Dowling’s lens does not teach a lens as claimed. Ex. 2076 ¶ 431 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 24).” slip op. at 31

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “electriciaan” and not a “licensed electrician.” Opp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002, 25 ¶¶ 6–7, 32 ¶¶ 46, 48). Instead, Petitioner argues that “the disclosure lacks the term ‘licensed electrician,’ lacks a definition of ‘licensed electrician,’ and lacks an explanation of what type of electrical connection would be allowed without the assistance of a licensed electrician.” Id.; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 76–79) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, Petitioner argues that the original application does not support proposed substitute claims 23 and 28. See id. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The ’295 and ’447 applications describe a “skilled” electrician, not a “licensed” electrician. Patent Owner does not show that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret these to be equivalent. Accordingly, we find that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 adds new matter. Proposed substitute claim 24 depends from claim 23 and thus includes the same new matter.” slip op. at 63

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Indefinite

    “electrician. See id. (citing Ex. 1002, 25 ¶¶ 6–7). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ducharme, attests that a “licensed electrician is an individual who has obtained a license from a regulatory authority such as a state or local government.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 85. The licensing standards set forth “differ depending upon a given industry” and “change over time.” Id. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that “one skilled in the art is left to speculate as to what type of electrical wirings require a licensed electrician and which do not — there is no reasonable certainty of the scope of the claimed invention, as the standard requires.” Opp. 5–6 (citing Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014)). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 are indefinite. Specifically, we agree that there is no reasonable certainty as to the definition of a licensed electrician, nor how to adapt wiring for series connection without the required assistance of a licensed electrician. Accordingly, we find that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 are indefinite. Proposed substitute claim 24 depends from claim 23 and thus includes the same indefinite limitation.” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 10,429,041 unpatentable
  § 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,429,041
• Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation v. Carolyn W. HafemanInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01191 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 under both asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Hafeman 670 and declining discretionary denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Our binding guidance states that the Board “will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Memorandum, 7. Petitioner could not make such a stipulation in district court litigation to which it is not a party. Instead, LG, as the defendant in the LG Litigation and a real party in interest in this proceeding, made such a stipulation, and LG’s stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. Indeed, in advocating for discretionary denial in view of the LG Litigation, Patent Owner argues that “for all intents and purposes, Google and Microsoft are ‘the same party’ as LG in the litigation.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner, therefore, effectively treats Petitioner and LG as the same entity to argue for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 10

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “In light of the priority dispute with respect to the challenged claims, we determine that two petitions are justified. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide6 (Nov. 2019), 59 (“[T]he Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.”). We also note the that two petitions together present a total of four grounds, and addressing the grounds in the two petitions does not create a substantial burden on the Board or the parties under these circumstances.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “(“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., electronic communications systems.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–97). Petitioner also contends that “[s]ignificantly more practical experience could also qualify one not having the aforementioned education as a person of ordinary skill in the art while, conversely, a higher level of education could offset a lesser amount of experience.” Id. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s proposed definition nor proposes a different level of skill in the art. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been 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 v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner presents two issues for claim construction. Pet. 23–27. First, Petitioner argues that certain language in each independent claim should be interpreted to require the automatic display of certain information “during or after every boot-up.” Id. at 23–26. Second, Petitioner argues that the return and recovery information recited in the claims is merely printed matter that is not entitled to patentable weight. Id. at 26–27. Patent Owner “takes no position” on Petitioner’s first claim construction argument, and disputes Petitioner’s second argument. Prelim. Resp. 8–12. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,789,393
• Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation v. Carolyn W. HafemanInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01189 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Hafeman 670 anticipates the claims because the ’332 application lacked written-description support for remote initiating.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Our binding guidance states that the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Interim Procedure 7. Petitioner could not make such a stipulation in district court litigation to which it is not a party. The defendant in that litigation, LG Electronics Inc., which is a real party in interest in this proceeding (Pet. 81),” slip op. at 6

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “We find that two petitions are justified here due to the priority date issue that this Petition raises. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (“[T]he Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “D. Claim Construction We need not expressly construe any terms to determine whether to institute. 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” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,325,122
• Vmware, Inc. v. Cirba Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · PGR2021-00098 · APJ Russell E Cass · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–63 are unpatentable under § 112(a) because the patent lacks written-description support for the claimed “already placed” and “issue instructions” limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Pet. 20–54. With its Petition, Petitioner submitted the Declaration of Dr. Erik Zadok. Ex. 1006. Patent Owner elected to waive its Preliminary Response. Paper 11. We instituted trial on all grounds of unpatentability. (Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”)).” slip op. at 3

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

    “term “placing” requires more than a theoretical placing or planning to place as part of an analytical solution. Turning first to the claim language, we agree with Petitioner that the language of the independent claims is consistent with “placement” occurring after and separately from the analytical evaluation process. See Pet. Reply 3. For example, claim 1 is directed to a system for “determining placement of source computer systems on target systems,” the system configured to “determine a placement” by employing operations to “evaluate compatibility.” Ex. 1001, 40:2–4, 40:8– 36. The second “evaluate compatibility” operation is “to determine if the specific source system can be placed with those other source systems on the specific target system,” which suggests that what is being evaluated is whether the source system can be actually placed (e.g., moved or transferred) to the target system. Id. at 40:18–27 (emphasis added). Similarly, the third “evaluate compatibility” operation involves “evaluating the impact on resource utilization of the specific target system of placing the specific source system on the specific target system,” which suggests that what is being evaluated is the impact on resource utilization once the source system is actually moved or transferred to the target. Id. at 40:28–32 (emphasis added). Additionally, the claim states that, based on the “evaluate” operations, the claimed system “determine[s]” a placement, not that it executes the placement. Id. at 40:8–11. The actual placement seemingly occurs after the final claimed operation of “issu[ing] instructions to place” the source system(s) on to the target system “in accordance with the determined placement.” Id. at 40:37–39. Independent claims 32 and 63 include similar language. Id. at 42:36–43:3, 45:1–46:19. Had the patent applicant wanted to cover systems that were merely “hypothetically placed,” language to that effect could have been added to the claim.” slip op. at 19

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

    “As noted above, the claim language requires evaluating compatibility between a specific source system and one or more other source systems “already placed” on the target system. Paragraph 82 does not disclose the evaluation of compatibility of a source system and another source system as part of the “forward consolidation.” Additionally, paragraph 82 does not disclose that “existing target systems 16” have source systems “already placed” on them. Thus, paragraph 82 does not provide the level of detail recited in the limitation under either party’s definition of “placed.” In addition, as noted above, we have interpreted “placed” to require an actual placement rather than merely “planning to place” or a theoretical placement. See § II.A.2, supra. Therefore, even if the “existing target system 16” had theoretical or hypothetical systems added to it as part of the consolidation analysis, those would not be systems that are “already placed” on the target system.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,951,459 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,951,459

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.