• 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
• 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
• Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v. Hangzhou ZH Tech Co., Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · PGR2024-00034 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds after finding at least one claim more likely than not unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. See 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute a post-grant review, we must determine that “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note that the identification of a Ph.D. as an example of “more formal education” creates a vast range of education relative to a bachelor’s degree. Thus, we treat the identification of a Ph.D. just as it is—an example—and not a requirement. In this case, “more formal education” can be satisfied by a level of education less than a Ph.D (but greater than a bachelor’s degree). Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, definition, limited as discussed above, for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 10

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

    “would have understood Unger’s disclosure to “suggest the use of a torsion spring to facilitate attachment and detachment, because torsion springs are designed to impart this functionality.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 118). Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood that there were a limited number of ways to impart the referenced resilient or flexible ‘manipulation,’” and “would have been motivated to look to various known solutions to impart the suggested functionality, including the torsional spring mechanism of Smith that is used in a similar hearing protection device application for a similar purpose as Unger’s mounting arms (to apply a clamping force).” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121).” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,736,855
• Godberson-Smith Construction Company D/B/A Gomaco Corporation v. Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · PGR2024-00026 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1–7 and all grounds because Petitioner showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim lacks written-description support.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments, cited portions of the Specification, and supporting testimonial evidence demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–7 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner

    “patent describes that “angular position transducer 78 is placed on top of swing leg pivot shaft 24” and that “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate and duplicates the angular movements of swing leg 20 about the pivot shaft.” Ex. 1001, 12:15–16, 12:20–22, Figs. 5, 7. The ’723 patent also describes that “[a]ngular position transducer 78 is mounted inside . . . protective can 90 . . . which is bolted to hinge bracket 28 via an upright holding arm 92” and that “trigger pin 94 projects upwardly from the top surface of pivot shaft 24 and cooperates with angular position transducer 78 to generate an angular position signal.” Id. at 12:28–33, Fig. 5. These descriptions expressly convey that angular position transducer 78 is on pivot shaft 24 and mounted inside protective can 90 that is bolted to hinge bracket 28. Id. at 12:15–16, 12:20–22, 12:28–30, Figs. 5, 7; see also Prelim. Resp. 17 (describing the same embodiment shown in Figs. 5 and 7). According to Petitioner, the ’723 patent describes the pivot shaft as part of the hinge bracket, not the modular frame or swing leg. Pet. 109–110 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:42–46, 12:17–22). On the preliminary record, we agree because the cited portions of the Specification describe that a “hinge bracket is interposed between each swing leg and an associated surface of the bolsters and includes a fixed, upright pivot shaft that pivotally engages the swing leg for pivotal movements” and “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate.” Ex. 1001, 7:42–45, 12:20–21. We also agree that “even if one were to find that the hinge bracket is part of either the modular frame or swing leg (contrary to the claims and specification treating these all as separate components), the specification would only provide written description for one of the claimed alternatives.” Pet. 110 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).” slip op. at 19

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

    “At this preliminary stage, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. 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 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “We will also not use our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition based on arguments previously presented in IPR2021-00135, because Petitioner relies on a Board determination regarding claim 8 from IPR2021- 00136, not arguments previously made for claim 1 in IPR2021-00135. Pet. 111–115, 119; Prelim. Resp. 8–9; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Furthermore, we determined the effective filing date of claim 8 of the ’571 patent without deciding, that other challenged claims, such as claim 1, were entitled to their earliest possible effective filing date. See Godberson-Smith, Paper 61 at 11, 12.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,772,723
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · IPR2022-01564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Keith; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground over Hanson and Keith.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure,” and the test “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” of that application. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. But, “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.” slip op. at 33

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.”). slip op. at 13

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2022). “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “‘It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.’” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. We agree with Petitioner there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. We find that the disclosure of the ’653 application—limited to general teachings of a smart card, an operating system, and a smart card manager—is insufficient to show possession of limitation [1(j)]. See Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. As we explained above, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571−72. The ’653 Application contains no disclosure of replacing applications, even if the disclosure might render such replacing obvious, it is not sufficient to show the possession required to establish entitlement to a priority date. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’724 patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than March 4, 2012.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that “[t]he parties agree on the level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for all terms not expressly construed below,” and indicates that in parallel District Court litigation, the parties agreed to claim construction for the term “emulator device” to mean “hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that the term “application” should be construed to mean “‘software program suitable for being executed on a portable device,’” but that the “distinction between the parties’ respective proposals need not be resolved for this proceeding.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner finally contends that the phrase “a portion of or in entirety” in each independent claim means “in its entirety or partially,” but not both. Id. at 9. Patent Owner submits that “[t]he parties agree that the Board should construe ‘emulator device’ as ‘hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.’” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner “does not believe that any other terms require construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding.” Id. We apply the agreed upon constructions above, but otherwise find that no express constructions are necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that, even if the applications were stored in “generic memory” as Patent Owner contends, Zhu provides adequate security and would not undermine Petitioner’s motivation to combine. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380 (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”). Indeed, Zhu addresses the problem Patent Owner contends it would cause in the combination.3 As Zhu 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should be precluded from discussing Zhu’s encryption embodiment because it was not raised in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. The claims do not recite anything about how the data should be stored. Thus, it is not surprising that the Petition did not address it. Patent Owner raised the teaching away argument regarding the security of the data. See PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner relies on the exact same mapping, same motivation, and same arguments why Zhu accounted for certain limitations. See Reply 4–11. Petitioner’s Reply merely explained that Zhu did address the problem Patent Owner contended would “teach away” from the combination. Indeed, Patent Owner was aware of Zhu’s teachings and addressed them in their Patent Owner Response. The Federal recognizes, “[l]oading one of the smart card applications already resident on the smart card to another memory location on the mobile device can provide sufficient memory for the selected smart card application, but can also create a security problem.” Ex. 1006 (Zhu), 3:25–34. To address this problem, Zhu proposes encrypting these applications in generic memory which “reduces the possibility of unauthorized access to the information.” Id. at 3:59–61, 8:30–55, 9:28–33; Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6. Although acknowledging this disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, testifies that Zhu’s encryption is inadequate and that encryption would have certain drawbacks. See Ex. 2002 (Weaver Decl.) ¶ 69. We find this testimony, which directly contradicts the teachings of Zhu that encryption is an adequate solution, lacks sufficient support to be entitled to much weight. Dr. Weaver provides no citations to support his contention that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would find encryption so inadequate or problematic as he now contends. Moreover, we find that Dr. Weaver’s testimony on cross examination provides an additional, independent basis to give this testimony little weight. On cross examination, Dr. Weaver contended that there was nothing uniquely inadequate about the particular encryption scheme disclosed in Zhu, but rather that his “opinion was more general, that encryption schemes known in the 2012 time frame were all breakable with computing power and time,” and thus, inadequate Circuit has explained that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding Zhu’s encryption are proper. for storing payment applications in a mobile device’s general memory. Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 26:11–23; see also id. at 23:3–8 (“[D]oes encryption ever provide a sufficiently high security to permit storing payment application on a mobile device’s general memory? A. No”); 24:15–25:23 (testifying all publicly known encryption schemes in 2012 were breakable). However, when confronted with the fact that the ’724 patent discloses storing payment application on general baseband memory using an encryption method that was breakable, id. at 26:24–29:7, Dr. Weaver testified that this encryption method was sufficient to allow storing payment applications in general baseband memory even though it was “not perfectly secure,” id. at 29:8–14. Dr. Weaver provides no explanation or rationale why the encryption method in the ’724 patent, which he admits suffers from the same drawbacks he identified with respect to Zhu, is sufficient, but other encryption methods would not be sufficient. In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner attempts to rehabilitate Dr. Weaver’s testimony with justifications and qualifications not found in his original testimony. Sur-Reply 7–8. Yet, Dr. Weaver’s testimony discussed above was clear and unequivocal. See Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 24:15–29:14. Patent Owner made no effort to redirect his testimony at his deposition, so it cannot now do so through mere attorney argument. We find the inconsistency between Dr. Weaver’s treatment of Zhu and his treatment of similar disclosure in the ’724 patent exposes the insufficient reasoning supporting his opinions regarding the adequacy of Zhu’s use of encryption in the combination. Accordingly, we give no weight to his testimony that a skilled artisan would not have combined Zhu with a Buhot/GPC system due to security concerns. In contrast, we find the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the use of encryption and the tradeoffs with the benefits of adopting Zhu’s memory management technique, which he offers in his Supplemental Declaration, to be well-reasoned, consistent with the disclosure of Zhu and the ’724 patent4, and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. As Petitioner recognizes, “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver testified, decryption without access to the security keys is an extremely computationally intensive and time-consuming process. Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 23:17–25:2; see also Ex. 10175, 132. Mr. Smith testifies that the benefits of using encryption would be sufficient to resolve the security concerns Patent Owner raises, and that any burden of generating a certificate would be outweighed by the benefits of using encryption and the memory advantages Zhu’s technique would offer. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s security concerns would be” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,018,724 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,018,724
• 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
• Vivint, Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00810 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 13–21 are unpatentable: Vaios anticipates some claims, and the listed Vaios, Klein, and Naidoo-068 combinations render the remaining claims obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–24). Patent Owner responds that “Petitioner and its expert rely on conclusory statements regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art” such that Dr. “Hochwald’s conclusory opinion should be given no weight.” PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–24). Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, Dr. Hochwald declares that “[a]ll of the opinions contained in this declaration are based on the documents I have reviewed and my professional judgment, as well as my education, experience, and professional knowledge.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 17. Such documents include the “’098 patent (EX1001), the prosecution history of the ’098 patent (EX1017), the prior art references cited herein, and other Hochwald bases his proposed level of ordinary skill on the relevant documents. Moreover, Patent Owner does not offer a proposed level of ordinary skill in the art or even argue that a different level would result in a different analysis by Dr. Hochwald or any other declarant. See id. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’098 patent specification. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached

    “Phillips. See Pet. 7–8. The parties disagree over whether the preamble is limiting. Compare PO Resp. 2–3 (arguing the preamble is limiting), with Reply 2–3 (arguing that “‘for receiving a person at an entrance’ clearly states an intended purpose of the invention”). As the analysis of the grounds art renders the claims unpatentable.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In any event, even if we generally adopt what Patent Owner refers to as an agreed upon plain and ordinary meaning and construe “detecting a person at the entrance” as limited to “detecting a person at an exterior,” and further construe “exterior” as referring to the exterior of an area defined by some type of a “demarcation line” according to the ’098 patent’s description of Figure 1 (see Ex. 1001, 6:40–50), the Petitioner persuasively shows that the prior art teaches the limitation (including when the “demarcation line” defines the exterior of a building), as discussed further below. Accordingly, it is not necessary to explicitly construe the limitation any further or to construe any other claim terms, because any construction would not impact the analysis of Petitioner’s asserted grounds. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we 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 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “shows that the ’384 provisional does not contemplate transmitting “video of the person at the entrance” to a “remote peripheral device by which a user of the remote peripheral device may view the video of the person at the entrance,” using “a graphic user interface,” as claim step 1c requires. Disclosure in the ’384 provisional of a generic laptop or other remote peripheral device that may be capable of viewing video in isolation is not possession of the claimed invention. In other words, as Petitioner persuasively shows, “[c]ommunication of actual video to the remote peripheral device was not countenanced in the provisional, and [Patent Owner] fails to identify evidence to the contrary.” Id. at 9. That is, as Petitioner also argues, “[w]ritten description support is not established simply by identifying peripheral devices such as PDAs and laptop[s] in the provisional and arguing that such devices were ‘capable of’ displaying video, nor by the provisional’s disclosure of ‘communications’ between the central computer and said peripheral devices.” Id. at 8–9 (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Under the rationale and holding of Tech. Licensing Corp., even if “a person skilled in the art might conclude” that the ’384 provisional’s disclosed system is capable of performing the same function of viewing the particular video at a remote peripheral device, this is not enough to show adequate written description. See id. at 1334 (“This evidence persuaded the trial court that a person skilled in the art might conclude that R21 and R26 establishing a level shifted signal [as recited in the ’250 patent claims at issue], but that was all,” and that evidence is insufficient to satisfy written description for a level shifted signal), 1333–34 (“The pertinent question is not whether a person skilled in the art could look at both Figure 3 [from the earlier-filed ’323 application] and Figure 16 [from the ’250 patent at issue] and determine that the resistors in the former perform a similar function to the resistors in the latter. Rather, the issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand from the earlier application alone, without consulting the new matter in the ’250 patent, that the inventor had possession of the claimed ‘other circuit’ in 1992 when the ′323 application was filed.”). Even if there is a disclosure in the ’384 provisional of a system that merely is capable of providing for the viewing of live streaming or recorded video at the remote peripheral device of “the person at the entrance,” this still is not sufficient written description for claim 1, step 1c. Rather, claim 1 requires “a graphic user interface” (which facilitates and controls the viewing) at “the remote peripheral device,” because it requires “providing a [GUI] to a remote peripheral device by which a user of the remote peripheral device may view the video of the person at the entrance.”14 There is no disclosure in the ’384 provisional for providing a GUI to a remote peripheral device. See Inst. Dec. 9 (indicating a lack of showing as to the claimed” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,139,098 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,139,098
• 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

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.