• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01349 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because claims 1–13 are entitled to the May 26, 2005 priority date, making the asserted references not prior art and the obviousness grounds unlikely to prevail.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”). 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). Thus, if Petitioner has not satisfied the threshold reasonable likelihood standard for institution, then institution will be denied. See id. at 1378–1379.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States . . . shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application.” (emphasis added). “In essence, this means that in a chain of continuing applications, a claim in a later application receives the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application so long as the disclosure in the earlier application meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, including the written description requirement, with respect to that claim.” Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And to determine whether a parent application meets the written description requirement, “the disclosure must be considered as a whole, as the person of ordinary skill in the art would read it, to determine if it reasonably conveys possession” of the claimed invention. Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Labs. Private Ltd., 111 F.4th 1358, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citation and emphasis omitted); see also Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the purpose of the written description requirement “is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude . . . does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification”).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) if presented, objective evidence of non-obviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). As previously noted, the first factor regarding the scope of available prior art is the dispositive issue of this Petition, which is largely defined by the effective filing date of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “Because we determine that no inter partes review will be instituted on IPR2024-01350, we find it unnecessary to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the ’849 patent. See Paper 9, 9. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for the Board to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the ’849 patent is denied. Petitioner further requests that all briefing in this proceeding be provided to the Certificates of Correction and Petitions branches for their consideration, citing Patent Owner’s “duties of candor and good faith.” Id. at 2, 10. However, in view of our determination not to institute review in this proceeding, we defer to the Certificates of Correction and Petitions branches to carry out their duly authorized duties. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 23

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,719,849
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01350 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–15 because Petitioner did not show the asserted references were prior art; the claims were supported by the ’330 application’s 2005 filing date.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To prevail on its obviousness challenges, Petitioner must show that the ’848 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the ’330 application. This issue is dispositive because none of the references relied on by Petitioner qualify as prior art if the ’848 patent is entitled to the benefit of the May 26, 2005, filing date of the ’330 application. Pet. 6, 13. We start by explaining why Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “1. The Burden of Persuasion “In an inter partes review . . ., the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). That burden, termed the burden of persuasion, “is the ultimate burden assigned to a party who must prove something to a specified degree of certainty.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). That burden never shifts to the patentee. Id. at 1379. In order for an inter partes review to be instituted, “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 [must] show[] that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “d) Analysis Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that its asserted references, including Steuer 750 which is a publication of the ’330 application, are prior art to the ’848 patent. Petitioner has not shown that the ’330 application fails to provide written description support for claim 1 of the ’848 patent, which recites “video data” samples and representations.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “a chain of priority from the ’330 application to the ’848 patent contain at least the same disclosure as the ’330 application, Petitioner has not shown that the ’848 patent should not be given the benefit of the effective filing date of the ’330 application. The May 26, 2005 filing date of the ’330 application predates the December 1, 2005 publication date of Steuer 750, the August 13, 2013 issue date of Steuer 768, and the December 2, 2010 and May 27, 2010 publication and filing dates of Neumeier.10 Pet. 7; Ex. 1005, code (43); Ex. 1006, code (45); Ex. 1007, codes (43), (60).11 Therefore, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the asserted claims in the ’848 patent would have been obvious over the asserted combinations of Steuer 750, Steuer 768, and Neumeier.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,719,848
• Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00557 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10–12, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 were not shown unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would be a person with a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent training or job experience, with two years of experience in computer networking technology, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner indicates that it does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, 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), and, therefore, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “associated sessions” With respect to the limitation “associated sessions,” Patent Owner asserted that the ’669 Patent defines those sessions as those that “should not be managed independent from each another,” and continues to assert the same in its Response. PO Resp. 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:37–38). Based on the recitations of the Specification, we construe “associated sessions” as “sessions that should not be managed independent from each other,” as proffered by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 7:37–38. slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected Petitioner’s proposed construction in the District Court Case, and following briefing and oral argument in that proceeding, the District Court concluded that “composition session” means “a signaling session that is separate from the associated sessions and that is for facilitating management of the associated sessions.” PO Resp. 16. Having reviewed the District Court’s determination, we do not discern a significant difference in scope between it and Petitioner’s formulation, and we, thus, adopt its construction of “composition session” in the analysis below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “As such, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Foti with RFC 3261, RFC 4566, RFC 2326, Wright, and Lloyd, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving that combination, as we determined in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 17–18. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have consulted and utilized disclosures in the RFC references to understand and implement the protocols disclosed by Foti. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that such skilled artisans would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Wright and Lloyd with those of Foti for the reasons provided. Petitioner has asserted that each of the supporting references would have been used by persons of ordinary skill in the art to modify or enhance the system described in Foti for the benefits described for the proposed changes. Absent reasons the references should not be combined, we determine that the motivation proffered by the Petition is sufficient to support the combination, under the preponderance of the evidence standard.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,667,669 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,667,669
• NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01062 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–15, 19–20, and 22–24; allowed substitute claims 26–29, 31–38, and 40–44; and denied substitute claims 30 and 39 for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; see Pet. 10. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Mr. Fischer’s definition for purposes of that decision. Institution Decision (Paper 7) 9–10. Patent Owner states that it “accepts that definition for the purposes of this proceeding.” Rev’d MTA 24. Mr. Fischer’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Mr. Fischer’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for “code” and “Electronic Product Code (EPC).” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 6. Patent Owner asserts that “the limitations of the substitute claims do not require construction and should, instead, be construed in accordance with their ordinary meaning.” Rev’d MTA 24. According to Patent Owner, the addition of certain features of the proposed substitute claims renders moot Petitioner’s arguments concerning the meaning of the term “code.” Id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that the content of the recited codes— an EPC and a code different from the EPC—constitutes “printed matter” (non-functional descriptive material) and, therefore, are not entitled to patentable weight. Opp. to Rev’d MTA 7–10; Pet. Sur-reply 5–6. We need not reach this issue. Even if we construed the specifically recited codes as being non-functional descriptive material, Petitioner, for reasons discussed below, has not shown that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable. Also, the parties do not identify any other issue in this case that turns on whether the two recited codes are non-functional descriptive material. See, e.g., Opp. to Rev’d MTA 11–12 (Petitioner arguing that the relied-on prior art discloses codes in the form of an EPC and a TID (i.e. a code other than the EPC)). On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “A patent claim is indefinite when that claim, “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [does not] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. BioSig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).” slip op. at 12

  • ScopeDecided for patent owner

    “Motion to Amend, that “[c]onstruing ‘a first and second memory bank’ to mean, for example, two memories instead of ‘a memory’ also impermissibly broadens the claims.” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 3024– 3027); see also Pet. Sur-reply 1–2 (“the scope of the proposed claims is impermissibly broadened to encompass logical memory banks storing codes in more than one memory.”); Tr. 7:12–13 (“That’s improper because it enlarges the scope of claims to include two memories instead of just one.”). Petitioner’s argument appears to assume that the proposed substitute claims require two memories (as opposed to the recited “memory bank[s]”) and that, because two memories are quantitatively more than one memory, the claims have been broadened. We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. The arguments are contingent upon a construction of two memory banks being the same scope as two memories. See Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (“Construing . . . impermissibly broadens the claims.”). Petitioner has not offered any persuasive argument or evidence that the two different terms—“memory” and “memory bank” are coextensive or that the more general term “memory” can encompass two of the more specific “memory bank[s].” Further, even if the proposed substitute claims required two memories rather than two memory banks, adding the requirement of a second memory (or, as written in the proposed claims, two memory banks rather than “a memory” as in the issued claim) is further limiting the claims and, therefore, is not broadening the scope. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 183 F.3d at 1374. We agree with Patent Owner that the amended language regarding two memory banks does not impermissibly broaden the scope relative to the original claims.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,134,451
• Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Microsoft's rehearing request, maintaining that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are entitled to the July 17, 2001 priority date and that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/087,098 (Ex. 1014, “the ’098 application”), which was filed on March 1, 2002, and that the ’864 patent and the ’098 application claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/306,326 (Ex. 1015, “the ’326 provisional”), which was filed on July 17, 2001. Dec. 14–15 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 10; Paper 14 (“PO Resp.”), 8; Ex. 1001; Ex. 1014, 2). We determined that Smart Skins LLC (“Patent Owner”) had shown sufficiently that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to a filing date of July 17, 2001, because the disclosures of the ’098 application and the ’326 provisional (collectively, “the priority applications”) provide written description support for the challenged claims of the ’864 patent. Dec. 14–21.” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “established by Patent Owner for the challenged claims (July 17, 2001) predates the earliest filing dates of Janik and Kehoe established by Petitioner (September 4, 2001, and October 24, 2001, respectively). Dec. 22. We determined that, as a result, Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dec. 22. Therefore, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over Janik and Kehoe. Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that, because we erred in determining that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Petitioner requests that we address the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe “conditionally,” even if we do not change our determination regarding the priority date of the challenged claims. Req. Reh’g 15. We are not persuaded, though, that it would be an efficient use of resources to address all of the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe when Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Janik and Kehoe are prior art to the challenged claims. Therefore, we decline to “conditionally” address any remaining issues regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe.” slip op. at 15

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,079,864
• Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Lunsford and Canova; Janik and Kehoe do not qualify as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not identify any material differences between their respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 11–12; PO Resp. 5. Thus, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case. Further, our findings and conclusions in this case would be the same under either party’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent necessary, though, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, which is supported by the declaration of Dr. Ian Cullimore. PO Resp. 5; Ex. 2006 ¶ 27. As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in engineering or computer science, a minimum of a few years of experience with designing and developing software and hardware systems for mobile devices, and general knowledge of embedded systems, and software principles, peripherals, communications protocols, and the like.” slip op. at 5

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

    “We agree that the specification of the ’864 patent supports construing the adding limitations to mean “configured to enable or contribute to enabling the peripheral device and the mobile device to function together,” as Petitioner proposes. For example, the ’864 patent states that “I/O interface 406 [of electronics 400] facilitates an application or a system service of mobile device 300 in reading the inputs provided by peripherals 102–104, and to writing the outputs to be outputted to peripherals 102–104.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 65–col. 5, l. 1 (emphasis added). The ’864 patent further explains that “protocol processor 403 [of electronics 400] is employed to recover the input data” from peripherals 102–104 (id. at col. 4, ll. 43–48 (emphasis added)), and that “device driver 532 [of mobile device 300] notifies protocol processor 403 to package the data for output to peripherals 102–104” (id. at col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 1 (emphasis added)). These portions of the ’864 patent indicate that the electronic component, which includes the protocol processor, facilitates the transmission of data between the peripheral device and the mobile device, and, thus, contributes to enabling the peripheral device and the mobile device to function together. Id. at col. 6, ll. 3–4 (“Accordingly, data may be . . . inputted and/or outputted for mobile device 300 and peripherals 102–104.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “burden to come forward with evidence that claims 1 and 15 are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. As a result, the burden of production returns to Petitioner to show that claims 1 and 15 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Id. at 1380. Petitioner argues that the priority applications do not disclose that the electronic component is coupled to the LEDs or that the electronic component is configured (or designed) to add the LEDs to the mobile device. Pet. Reply 2–4. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “[t]he two ancestor applications . . . do not describe those LEDs interacting with either the mobile device or the supposed electronic component in the cover,” but instead imply “that the LEDs control themselves.” Id. at 3–4. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. First, the priority applications do not imply that the LEDs control themselves. The priority applications disclose that the electronic component on the cover includes data for personalizing various aspects of the mobile phone. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1014, 8–9 (“having data . . . for personalizing various behavioral or non-visual aspects of the personality of exposed mobile phone”), 21 (“During this exchange of data, settings . . . complementary to the personalizing theme of the interchangeable covering [are] immediately implemented in the mobile electronic device”); Ex. 1015, 7–8, 20. The priority applications further disclose that the “included data control[s] the LEDs.” PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1014, 17; Ex. 1015, 16. Thus, the priority applications convey that the electronic component on the cover includes data for controlling the LEDs. Second, the priority applications describe the LEDs as interacting with the mobile device and the electronic component. As discussed above, the priority applications disclose that the electronic component and the mobile phone exchange data for personalizing various aspects of the mobile phone. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1014, 8–9, 21; Ex. 1015, 7–8, 20. With respect to personalization of the mobile phone using the LEDs on the cover, the priority applications disclose that the “LEDs may be utilized for various visual activities, such as, but not limited to, displaying a message, or lighting up corresponding to sounds.” PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1014, 17; Ex. 1015, 16. Thus, the priority applications convey that the electronic component is coupled to the mobile phone and the LEDs, and that the electronic component enables the mobile device to function together with the LEDs (e.g., so that the LEDs can be used to display a message or light up corresponding to sounds). Therefore, Patent Owner has shown sufficiently that claims 1 and 15” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the cited teachings of Lunsford and Canova. Pet. 23–26 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 32–38). We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning. Specifically, Lunsford and Canova relate to the same field of endeavor as the ’864 patent, that is, a cover for a mobile device that adds a peripheral to the mobile device.10 Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–30; Ex. 1003, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 3; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 47–55, col. 2, ll. 25–28. Further, as discussed above, Lunsford teaches a connector disposed on the cover body, and Canova also teaches a connector disposed on the cover body. Ex. 1003, col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 5, col. 10, ll. 34–45, Fig. 3E; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 53– 55, col. 2, ll. 1–8, col. 2, ll. 41–47, Figs. 5A, 5B. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these interrelated teachings of Lunsford and Canova so that the connector in Lunsford is disposed on the cover body as taught by Canova. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35–37; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Also, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to 9 As a result, the challenged claims would have been obvious over Lunsford, even without Canova. 10 In addition, Canova incorporates by reference the contents of Lunsford. Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 6–8, col. 1, ll. 19–20. dispose the connector in Lunsford on the cover body, as taught by Canova, in order to allow the connector in Lunsford to mate easily with the corresponding connector of a handheld computer. Pet. 25–26; Ex. 1007 ¶ 38; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,079,864 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,079,864
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · PGR2015-00018 · APJ Richard E Rice · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, and 10–14 are unpatentable as indefinite under § 112(b); the Board did not reach the § 103(a) grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 10–13; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 10–13). Patent Owner responds that “the Board should limit Petitioner’s overly broad definition of a POSA from having an associate’s degree in any science or engineering to having an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 12. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed definition should be limited because the inclusion of persons with an associate’s degree in any science or engineering fails to take into account the scope of the relevant art, which indisputably utilizes mechanical engineering principles.” Id. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “1. “elastic fastener” In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the claim term “elastic fastener” is an elastic element for attaching things together. Inst. Dec. 7–8. As neither party proposes any change to our interpretation, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary, we maintain that interpretation.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We determine that the test for indefiniteness that is applied in patent examination and reexamination matters, approved in Packard, should be applied in this post-grant review AIA proceeding, rather than the Nautilus requirement. The different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTO and the courts stem from the distinct roles that the PTO and the courts play in the patent system.12 In AIA proceedings, as in patent examination and reexamination matters, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, coupled with an opportunity to amend the claims, is an approach that is fair to the patent holder and protects the public. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145–46; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312–14. This approach serves to ensure precision in patent claims, thereby helping the public to understand the limits of the claims and keeping the rights afforded by patents within their legitimate scope. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–45; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. Accordingly, among the reasons supporting application of the Packard-approved indefiniteness test in this AIA proceeding are those recognized by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as supporting use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes review AIA proceedings. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2143–2146. Of these, the most important is the opportunity to amend the claims to correct any ambiguity. See id. at 2145 (“The patent holder may, at least once in the process, make a motion to do just what he would do in the examination process, namely, necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear.” 12 See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1325 (Plager, J., concurring) (stating that “unlike courts which have a full prosecution record to consider, the prosecution record before the USPTO is in development and not fixed during examination”). amend or narrow the claim.”) (citation omitted); 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. An applicant’s ability to clarify claim language through amendment was a significant reason why the Federal Circuit in Packard approved of the indefiniteness test recited in the MPEP (i.e., a “claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313–14.” slip op. at 18

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. MOTIONS TO EXCUDE In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 57), Patent Owner seeks to exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 and 1032. Paper 57, 1–3. We deny Patent Owner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits in reaching our decision in this case. In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 59), Petitioner seeks to exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2016–2018, 2020 (¶ 84), 2024, 2025 (¶ 39), 2026 (¶ 39), 2027–2070, 2073, 2074, 2078, and 2085. Paper 59, 1–8. We deny Petitioner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits and paragraphs in reaching our decision in this case.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,051,066 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,051,066
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01450 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,659 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’659 patent”). Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. slip op. at 2

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

    “reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 5

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “As best understood from FIG. 16B, extension 8513 of header console 8512 extends downwardly behind the upper portion of windshield W (such portion of windshield W which typically includes a shadeband element as known in the art) and includes a forked portion 8513a, such as an inverted V-shaped or U-shaped portion, which straddles a mirror mounting button 8536 that is mounted to windshield W. Optionally, the downwardly extending portion of header/header console 8512 may be mounted to the inner surface of windshield W, such as by an adhesive or may be releasably, mechanically attached such as by being received by and/or supported by one or more attaching members adhered to the inner surface of the windshield, such as by attachment members, including rails, channels, or the like. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment members. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found

    “obvious to combine the cited teachings of Schofield and Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to use the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach because the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield provides more functionality. Id. at 46–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶¶ 56, 59). Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield using the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach would advantageously seal the components of the camera in Schofield to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Schofield teaches that the imaging sensor module disclosed therein already is protected from such intrusions. Ex. 1007, col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 4. Further, the housing in Klappenbach is not just a protective housing for sensor components, but, rather, a structure designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner also argues that the fastening device in Klappenbach can be preinstalled. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner does not explain, though, why that would have made it obvious to use the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach with the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield. Moreover, Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach is, or can be, configured to accommodate a forward facing camera generally or the vehicle headlight dimming control in Figure 1 of Schofield particularly. Pet. 45–48. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited teachings of Blank, Schofield, and Klappenbach in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01436 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 78–80 and 83–89 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 78–80 and 83–89 of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,659 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’659 patent”). Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 78–80 and 83–89 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “written description of an attachment member attached to a vehicle windshield and local to a mirror mounting button, as recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 10–13 (citing Ex. 1913 ¶¶ 31–33, 40, 44–46). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. The ’287 patent discloses the following: As best understood from FIG. 16B, extension 8513 of header console 8512 extends downwardly behind the upper portion of windshield W (such portion of windshield W which typically includes a shadeband element as known in the art) and includes a forked portion 8513a, such as an inverted V-shaped or U-shaped portion, which straddles a mirror mounting button 8536 that is mounted to windshield W. Optionally, the downwardly extending portion of header/header console 8512 may be mounted to the inner surface of windshield W, such as by an adhesive or may be releasably, mechanically attached such as by being received by and/or supported by one or more attaching members adhered to the inner surface of the windshield, such as by attachment members, including rails, channels, or the like. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment member. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 7

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

    “camera.” Ex. 1002, col. 53, l. 63–col. 54, l. 2. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach corresponds to the claimed structure configured to accommodate a forward facing camera, and that the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield includes the claimed forward facing camera. Pet. 39–42. The housing in Klappenbach is designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach also is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera. Pet. 39–42. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combined teachings of Blank, Schofield, Klappenbach, and Carter would have taught or suggested the limitation “said structure is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera” to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01431 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 62–66 and 69 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 62–66 and 69 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. B.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “§ 112, first paragraph, does not require the description to be literally the same as the claim language at issue. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA 1971). Rather, by whatever language, the specification only must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date of the application, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing with approval the standard in Vas Cath, and stating “the test for sufficiency 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.”). Petitioner contends that pursuant to the holding in Lockwood, the specific combination found in each of the challenged claims of the ’659 patent must be disclosed in the ’287 patent in order to meet the written description standard. See Pet. 10–17 (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). To the extent that Petitioner suggests that the combination must be disclosed in a single embodiment, we disagree. Rather, in Lockwood, the court relied upon the written description standard found in Vas-Cath, and held that because one of the continuations in the chain of five applications did not describe the claim features, the later patent could not claim priority to the earlier patent. Lockwood, 107 F3d at 1571–72 (citing Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64). Consequently, we agree with Patent Owner that the written description requirement does not compel that a single embodiment fully describe the invention. See Prelim. Resp. 9–12. With this standard in mind we analyze Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the parties’ assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the ’287 patent is prior art.” slip op. at 6

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

    “b) Rationale Petitioner’s rationale for the proposed modification is not persuasive. First, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to utilize Klappenbach’s housing 2 in Blank’s device to provide rain sensor functionality. Pet. 37. Then Petitioner reasons it would have been obvious to replace Klappenbach’s rain sensor with the improved functionality of Schofield’s camera that includes rain sensing capability. See id. at 43. Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select Schofield’s camera, rather than the Klappenbach’s rain sensor, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount Schofield’s camera in Klappenbach’s housing. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Second, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s housing would advantageously seal the components of Schofield’s camera to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 38, 43–44 (citing Ex. 1713 ¶ 59). However, Schofield’s camera already is protected from such intrusions. See Ex. 1007, 3:67–4:4; Prelim. Resp. 32, 34. Third, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s technique of attaching the fastening device during windshield manufacture is a manufacturing advantage because the sensor is not mounted until after the motor vehicle is built. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1010, 2:11–16; Ex. 1713 ¶ 58). As discussed above, Klappenbach’s device is mounted pressed against and at the angle of the windshield, while Schofield’s is mounted spaced from the windshield and horizontal. Petitioner does not explain persuasively how Klappenbach’s technique provides a manufacturing advantage for a device such as Schofield’s camera that is mounted in a different manner. See Prelim. Resp. 32 (noting this advantage is particular to a refractive rain sensor). Further, Petitioner’s reasoning is contradictory in that it touts that Schofield’s camera “advantageously eliminates the requirement for optical coupling,” yet relies upon Klappenbach’s mounting technique for optical coupling. See Ex. 1713 ¶ 59. 5. Conclusion For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 62, 63, 65, 66, and 69 would have been obvious over Blank, Schofield, Klappenbach, and Batavia. C. OBVIOUSNESS OVER BLANK, SCHOFIELD, KLAPPENBACH, BATAVIA, CARTER, AND ADMITTED PRIOR ART” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659

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.