- Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,051,066 - Inguran, LLC D/B/A Sexing Technologies v. Premium Genetics (UK) Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · PGR2015-00017 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Durack, Mueth, and Frontin-Rollet.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“On September 16, 2016, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer for claims 2–14 of the ’395 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 2007. Therefore, only claim 1 (“the remaining challenged claim”) is at issue.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“1. “Channel” For purposes of the Institution Decision, the Board construed “channel” as “a long gutter, groove, or furrow.” Dec. Inst. 6–7. Patent Owner relies on testimony by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Vacca, to assert that “channel” should be construed as “a hollow member for conveying fluids.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1002, 153; Ex. 2006, 17:17–18:12). In response, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner provides no support for its contention that a channel must convey and not collect. See Pet. Reply 17. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that a “channel” must convey fluid. At deposition, Dr. Vacca explained, “a hollow member for conveying fluids” “is a definition that I have supplied . . . as one of the definitions of channel that I have . . . provided here.” Ex. 2006, 17:22–18:4. Although Patent Owner provides testimony regarding one definition for “channel,” Patent Owner does not provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that “a hollow member for conveying fluids” is the broadest reasonable interpretation of “channel.” We maintain the construction of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “channel” as “a long gutter, groove, or furrow,” (see Dec. Inst. 6) which encompasses within its scope “a hollow member for conveying fluids.”” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “said plurality of buffer channels which are disposed on either side of said first input channel” discussed above in Section II.A.2, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Durack discloses this claim limitation based on radial bores 173 and 183 disposed on one side of conduit 157 (i.e., the exterior circumferential bounding surface of conduit 157). See Ex. 1005, Fig. 5.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In light of Patent Owner’s position that it met its burden of production in the Preliminary Response, we return to the positions advanced by the parties. As discussed briefly above, Petitioner asserted that the at least one channel limitation recited in claim 1 was not disclosed in the manner required by § 112(a) in any of the patent applications filed before March 16, 2013 (i.e., the ’969 Application and the ’957 Application). See Pet. 12–17. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, argued that there was adequate written description support for the at least one channel limitation of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 8–13 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 13:21–23; Ex. 1004, 11:66–12:4, 16:22–25). Patent Owner, however, does not address the remaining limitations of claim 1 and whether the prior applications disclose those remaining limitations in the manner required by § 112(a). See PO Resp. 3–6; Prelim. Resp. 7–13. Patent Owner, at oral argument, acknowledged that just one limitation of claim 1 was addressed in the Preliminary Response because it was the only limitation disputed by Petitioner. See Tr. 24:16–25:2. Although Petitioner arguments addressing standing for post-grant review only disputed written description support for the at least one channel limitation of claim 1, we are not aware of any obligation on the part of Petitioner to address whether each and every limitation of claim 1 was disclosed in the manner required by § 112(a). In contrast, in order for Patent Owner to show entitlement to an earlier effective filing date, Patent Owner must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, possession of the invention now claimed by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572; VasCath, 935 F.2d at 1563–64. Patent Owner’s arguments addressing only the at least one channel limitation of claim 1 (see PO Resp. 3–6; Prelim. Resp. 7–13) are insufficient to meet Patent Owner’s burden of coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the invention, with all its claimed limitations, as of the September 3, 2004 filing date. For all of the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the ’395 Patent is entitled to an earlier effective filing date of September 3, 2004. Thus, Mueth and Frontin-Rollet remain prior art to the ’395 Patent.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,933,395 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,933,395 - Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Ltd. / Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Monosol RX, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2016 · IPR2016-01112 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner correctly notes that Petitioner does not rely on its proposed claim construction in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 7. Nor does Petitioner provide any discussion supporting its position that the construction that it proposes represents the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent, other than asserting that it is the same construction that was proffered in a district court proceeding. For purposes of this decision, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrases apply. Id. at 7. In any event, this Decision does not turn on the claim phrases for which Petitioner has proposed a construction.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“particular, Petitioner has not explained adequately why a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Chen and Shiraldi. As discussed, supra, Chen describes using a mixture of two or more types of the same hydrocolloid that differ only in molecular weights and Shiraldi describes selecting and blending various polymers. Petitioner has not shown that a person of skill in the art would have understood that Shiraldi teaches or suggests selecting various polymers based upon high and low molecular weights. Nor has Petitioner established that Chen’s teaching to combine two or more types of the same hydrocolloid having differing molecular weights involved selecting a mixture of high and low molecular weights in the manner claimed. Indeed, neither reference provides a teaching or an example of such a practice. The example in Chen relied upon by Petitioner includes only a low molecular weight polyethylene oxide. Pet. 32 (referring to Chen Example 11 using a polyethylene oxide having an average molecular weight of 100,000 Da). In contrast to Chen, Schiraldi preferred and exemplified only high molecular weight polyethylene, in a range well beyond that recited in the claims for that component. That is, Schiraldi describes the ethylene oxide useful for its invention as having “a relatively high molecular weight” and preferring molecular weights above 3,000,000, whereas the claims recite a molecular weight range of 600,000 to 900,000. See Ex. 1004, 4:25–31. Moreover, Petitioner has not shown that the cited prior art, alone or in combination, taught or suggested a film comprising both low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxide in the respective ranges recited by the claims, or with the specific percentage of the low molecular weight component required. The portions of Dr. Mumper’s declaration cited by Petitioner do not provide any further support for Petitioner’s position. We note that Dr. Mumper does not explain why the polyethylene oxides molecular weights limitation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill over the combined teachings of the prior art. Instead, Dr. Mumper opines only that the skilled artisan “would be highly motivated to vary the amounts of the low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxide to achieve the desired effects including, but not limited to drug solubility, mucoadhesion and drug release rate.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. That opinion does not address a skilled artisan’s motivation, ability, or reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a film comprising the specific ranges and proportion of low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxides required by the claims. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d at 1074 (a showing of obviousness must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The portions of Dr. Mumper’s declaration cited by Petitioner do not provide any further support for Petitioner’s position. We note that Dr. Mumper does not explain why the polyethylene oxides molecular weights limitation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill over the combined teachings of the prior art. Instead, Dr. Mumper opines only that the skilled artisan “would be highly motivated to vary the amounts of the low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxide to achieve the desired effects including, but not limited to drug solubility, mucoadhesion and drug release rate.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. That opinion does not address a skilled artisan’s motivation, ability, or reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a film comprising the specific ranges and proportion of low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxides required by the claims. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d at 1074 (a showing of obviousness must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,017,150 - Telebrands Corp. v. Ragner Technology CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 23, 2016 · PGR2016-00026 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–25 were more likely than not unpatentable for indefiniteness or obviousness over Berardi and Gladfelter.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the ’057 patent “would have been a person having general knowledge about and experience with the manufacture and/or use of hoses and with fluid mechanics and materials science as they relate to hoses and how hoses work generally. The person of ordinary skill has at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1005). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertion. On these facts, we determine that Petitioner’s articulation of a person of ordinary skill in the art is credible.” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“’057 patent defines the following relevant claim terms: “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Petitioner does not dispute that these claim terms are defined expressly by the ’057 patent, nor does Petitioner indicate that these claim terms are indefinite. Next, each independent claim recites expressly that the “stretched length” is longer than the “extended length,” which we construed above as “the length the hose or those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure.” Finally, the term “maximum stretched length,” both by the use of the word “maximum” and the express definition set forth in the ’057 patent, indicates that it constitutes an upper bound for the term “stretched length.” Accordingly, through transitive analysis, we determine that the recited term “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Relative claim terminology is acceptable if one of ordinary skill would have understood what is claimed, in light of the Specification. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure,” and also determined that “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” When considered in the aggregate, we see that “extended length” is a length of a hose attributable to only fluid pressure, while “stretched length” is a length of a hose attributable to any force other than fluid pressure. Accordingly, a discussion of the prior art must acknowledge the interplay between the length of the hose, fluid pressure, and other forces, in order to meet the aforementioned claim limitation.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,182,057 - Google, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00130 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 22 is also indefinite under § 112.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content. For example, claim 17 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data.” Ex. 1001, 27:1–15. As discussed above, the ’221 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1001, 1:20–55. The Specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The Specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of it by internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’221 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:59–2:4. The ’221 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored data based on supplier-defined access rules and validation of payment. Id. at 1:59–2:15. Although the Specification refers to data piracy on the Internet, the challenged claims are not limited to the Internet. The underlying concept of the challenged claims, particularly when viewed in light of the Specification, is controlling access to content based upon payment as Petitioner contends. As discussed further below, this is a fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“recite only well-known, routine, and conventional computer components and activities, which is insufficient to establish an inventive concept.” Reply 6. Petitioner adds that “[t]he specification [of the ’221 patent] itself disclaims [the claimed hardware elements] as non-inventive.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:4–13, 11:28–29, 12:29–32, 13:35–38, 16:46–50, 18:7–17). We are persuaded that claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt the rationale articulated in the Petition that the additional elements of the challenged claims are generic features of a computer that do not bring the challenged claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 49–82; Reply 6–19; ’126 Pet. 25–31; ’126 Reply 8–12.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“Upon consideration of the entire record, we are persuaded sufficiently byPetitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know that the antecedent basis for “said use rules” refers back to the “use rules data” introduced in claim 17. Although lack of antecedent basis alone is insufficient to render a claim indefinite, here the lack of antecedent basis introduces ambiguity into the claim. It is unclear whether claim 22 should recite “use rules” or “said use rules data,” rather than “said use rules.” As indicated above, we have construed “use rules” and “use rules data” differently. Accordingly, we are persuaded that claim 22 is amenable to two plausible claim interpretations, and we determine that the phrase “said use rules” does not inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty and, therefore, is indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 2. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming Board’s conclusion, in context of ex parte appeal, that claims were indefinite “on grounds that they ‘contain[ ] words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.’”).” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Dr. Tygar’s Declaration. Because Exhibit 1002 relates to the underlying factual issues related to patent eligibility, we are not persuaded that it is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. It is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1002 in its entirety or any paragraph therein.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,118,221 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,118,221 - Google, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00126 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 22 is also indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues that the challenged claims are directed to the abstract idea of “controlling access to something based on validation that payment has been made” (’126 Pet. 21) or “payment for and/or controlling access to data” (Pet. 41). Specifically, Petitioner contends that “each challenged claim is drawn on its face to the concept of payment for and/or controlling access to data.” Pet. 43; see also ’126 Pet. 22 (“challenged claim 3 simply performs four steps inherent in the abstract idea of conditioning access on payment validation.”). We are persuaded that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content. For example, claim 17 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data.” Ex. 1001, 27:1–15.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“132 S. Ct. at 1297). “This requires more than simply stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ or ‘apply it with a computer.’ Similarly, the prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1332 (citations omitted). Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components performing conventional functions is not enough. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). Petitioner argues that “the [challenged c]laims’ ‘additional features’ recite only well-known, routine, and conventional computer components and activities, which is insufficient to establish an inventive concept.” Reply 6. Petitioner adds that “[t]he specification [of the ’221 patent] itself disclaims [the claimed hardware elements] as non-inventive.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:4–13, 11:28–29, 12:29–32, 13:35–38, 16:46–50, 18:7–17). We are persuaded that claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt the rationale articulated in the Petition that the additional elements of the challenged claims are generic features of a computer that do not bring the challenged claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 49–82; Reply 6–19; ’126 Pet. 25–31; ’126 Reply 8–12.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“Upon consideration of the entire record, we are persuaded sufficiently byPetitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know that the antecedent basis for “said use rules” refers back to the “use rules data” introduced in claim 17. Although lack of antecedent basis alone is insufficient to render a claim indefinite, here the lack of antecedent basis introduces ambiguity into the claim. It is unclear whether claim 22 should recite “use rules” or “said use rules data,” rather than “said use rules.” As indicated above, we have construed “use rules” and “use rules data” differently. Accordingly, we are persuaded that claim 22 is amenable to two plausible claim interpretations, and we determine that the phrase “said use rules” does not inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty and, therefore, is indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 2. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming Board’s conclusion, in context of ex parte appeal, that claims were indefinite “on grounds that they ‘contain[ ] words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.’”).” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Dr. Tygar’s Declaration. Because Exhibit 1002 relates to the underlying factual issues related to patent eligibility, we are not persuaded that it is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. It is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1002 in its entirety or any paragraph therein.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,118,221 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,118,221 - American Megatrends, Inc. / Micro-Star International Co., Ltd et al. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01079 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–45 are unpatentable: claims 1–40 and 44 as obvious over either PC Tools and Gerace or LogoMania, and claims 41–43 and 45 as obvious over either specified combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteDecided for petitioner
“We first note that proposed claim 46 recites a “profile,” a term that is broader than a “user profile” and is not specifically defined. In addition, the meaning of the language in proposed claim 46 “wherein the computer system [that displays the image] characterizes the profile under the operating system environment” is unclear. Although the operating system may be a Windows OS, as Patent Owner argues, Patent Owner does not cite to a description concerning what it means for the computer system, i.e., the system that displays the image, to “characterize[s] the profile” or what steps the computer takes to characterize the profile. Id. at 8–9. Instead, Patent Owner argues that a service center provides additional content based on the user system and profile. Id. at 9. That language, however, is not recited in proposed claim 46. We deny the Motion to Amend on this basis as well.” slip op. at 24
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“It was not Petitioner’s responsibility to monitor whether Patent Owner moved for Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. However, we also are troubled by Petitioner’s failure to seek a conference with the Board at the time of the deposition. Although Petitioner argues it could not have moved to quash the deposition because the notice was signed by lead counsel, Christopher Frerking (Reply to Opp. To Mot to Exclude 4), it appears that Petitioner’s counsel was aware that Mr. Summerfield would conduct the cross examination at least several days, and possibly several weeks, before the deposition took place. Hr’g Tr. 47, 49. Petitioner does not allege any prejudice as a result of Mr. Summerfield conducting the cross examination or argue that Mr. Summerfield behaved improperly during the deposition. Mot. To Exclude 4. Instead, Petitioner contends we should exclude the evidence as a matter of policy to demonstrate that our rules concerning pro hac vice admission must be taken seriously and to discourage others from acting in a similar manner, particularly in the case of deposition testimony and arguments that become part of the trial record. Id. at 4–6.8 Petitioner contends that allowing the deposition to take place did not cure its objection to the deposition. Reply to Opp. To Mot. To Exclude. 1–2. Dr. Kaliski’s deposition took place on January 8, 2016. Petitioner could have opposed Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission until January 16, 2016. However, notwithstanding Mr. Summerfield’s conduct, to which Petitioner objected, Petitioner did not oppose Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. Had Petitioner opposed Mr. Summerfield’s admission on the basis that he conducted the deposition without proper authorization, the issue could have been addressed earlier in the proceeding and another deposition scheduled, if it was determined that Mr. Summerfield would not be admitted and the deposition transcript would not be entered. Instead, Petitioner elected to delay the matter until the last possible date for filing a Motion to Exclude. Thus, even if Petitioner’s objection was not cured when Petitioner permitted the deposition to proceed without contacting the Board, Petitioner’s subsequent failure to oppose Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission pro hac vice implies at least some degree of consent. The parties conduct in this case does not warrant excluding Dr. Kaliski’s deposition transcript from evidence. We do not condone Patent Owner’s unreasonable delay in seeking pro hac vice admission of Mr. Summerfield, and under other circumstances our ruling might be different. However, in this case, the absence of prejudice and Petitioner’s failure to” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,373,498 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,373,498 - United Services Automobile Association v. Nader Asghari-Kamrani And Kamran Asghari-KamraniRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · CBM2016-00064 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place institution on claims 1–3, 5–28, and 30–55 based on the showing that those claims were more likely than not obvious over Nicholson and Brown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“2003/0046591 A1 (Ex. 1017), published on March 6, 2003, and WIPO International Publication No. WO 03/021837 A1 (Ex. 1028), published on March 13, 2003, more than one year before the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008)—are also prior art under § 102(b), showing what was known in the art and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.4 See In re Van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136–37 (CCPA 1972) (citing In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1969); In re Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 690–91 (CCPA 1958)) (noting that, because the patentee could not claim the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application, the patentee’s own prior patent or publication that was published more than one year from the actual filing date of the application at issue was available as prior art under § 102(b)). Therefore, we disagree with Patent Owner that we committed a clear error in determining that claim 1 does not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, and that we committed a clear error in concluding that Petitioner had demonstrated that the claims at issue are more likely than not unpatentable as obvious over Nicholson and Brown. For the reasons stated above, Patent Owner has not established that we abused our discretion in determining that the ’432 patent is not excluded as a technological invention, and that it is more likely than not that claims 1–3, 4 Petitioner’s asserted ground of unpatentability, on which we instituted a trial, is based on the combination of Nicholson and Brown under § 103(a). See Paper 2, 27–63; Dec. 35. 13 5–28, and 30–55 of the ’432 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Nicholson and Brown.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“was made. Req. Reh’g 13–14 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). In the Decision (Dec. 18–19), we noted that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). We further noted in the Decision (Dec. 19) that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). On this record, Nicholson, which was filed on July 14, 2006, and published on January 25, 2007, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.2 Ex. 1034 at [22], [43]. And, Brown, which was filed on June 3, 1996, and issued on April 14, 1998, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.3 Ex. 1035 at [22], [45]. Therefore, based on the current record, both Nicholson and Brown are prior art under § 102(b) as to the challenged claims. In addition, on this record, the publications of the first prior-filed application—U.S. Patent Application Publication No.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“demonstrated based on the current record that the benefit claim to the third prior-filed application complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120, among which is the requirement that the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides written description support for the challenged claims as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Dec. 26–27. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Once again, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120. As we determined in our Decision, Patent Owner has not shown, at this juncture, that the original disclosure of the second prior-filed application or the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides sufficient written description support for each limitation of the challenged claims. Dec. 23–29. Without this showing, the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application. Id. Therefore, on this record, “at the time of the invention” is not August 29, 2001, the filing date of the first prior-filed application, as alleged by Patent Owner, but rather, September 15, 2008, the actual filing date of the application that issued as the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,266,432 - Fitbit, Inc. v. Bodymedia, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 8, 2016 · IPR2016-00707 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Fitbit did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 would have been obvious over Mault 470 and Mault 089, which were not shown to be prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable construction of “contextual data of the individual” as recited in the claim limitation 1(b)(i) is “data relating to an individual’s activity state environment, surrounding, or location.” Pet. 17. Petitioner asserts that this construction was applied in the related ITC proceeding. Id. (citing Ex. 1015, 17–22, 33). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed construction. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for “contextual data of the individual.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“of the claimed subject matter without explaining what the parent application conveys to those skilled in the art. See Pet. 9–10 (discussing whether June 2000 applications contain “equivalent description” of claim 1 limitations); Ex. 1003 ¶ 32 (addressing whether “equivalent description” exits in the parent applications). Contrary to Petitioner’s application of the “equivalent description,” the test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is not “the presence or absence of literal support in the [parent application] for the claim language,” In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983), but instead is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64; see Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d at 1375). In the present case, Petitioner relies on conclusory statements that [t]he June 2000 applications do not contain an equivalent description of a processing unit configured to provide feedback for an individual’s weight-loss goal by performing each of the steps recited in subparts b.(i)–(v) of claim 1 in sufficient detail such that one of skill in the art can clearly conclude the applicant invented the claimed invention.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Mault 470 and Mault 089 are prior art, and, thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–29 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)
“Mault 470 and Mault 089 are prior art, and, thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–29 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted ground that claims 1–29 would have been unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,398,546 - Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00637 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious; Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support and indefiniteness.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“admitted that the patented features of voice and revoiced text are responsible for ‘giv[ing] the phone back to folks with hearing loss.’” PO Resp. 48 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner is offering the statement for the truth that voice and re-voiced text gives the phone back to folks with hearing loss. Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Puzey was discussing the existence of features in his company’s product rather than features in Patent Owner’s product does not change that his statement is offered as proof regarding an alleged long-felt need for the features. Accordingly, his testimony is hearsay. slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“art is telecommunication systems. Thus, a [POSA] is a person familiar with at least that technology by way of background and/or experience.” CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 13 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015); see also CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00780, Paper 35, 9 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015) (reaffirming our finding in IPR2013- 00549). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree” with that definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that, “without waiving the foregoing objection and reserving all rights,” states that it will “appl[y]” our prior definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 3. By not setting forth arguments advocating a particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and by applying our prior definition, Patent Owner has waived arguments for any other definition. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as expressed by its declarant, Mr. Occhiogrosso. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 26–27. This person typically has “a bachelor’s degree” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“understand a “communication link,” as claimed, to refer to the “communication line” described in the specification. In particular, the link is “intended not only to apply to a traditional land-line . . . but also to all equivalents that offer similar functionality.” Id. at 8:60–63. A link could be “a portion of the bandwidth” of a particular connection, such that a single mode of connection (e.g., IP) could carry out two types of communication (voice and text), with each type corresponding to a different “communication link.” See id. at 8:44–47, 8:63–65. For example, as explained in the ’838 patent, “[e]ach of the telephone lines could be . . . a portion of the bandwidth of an ISDN or DSL service.” Id. at 8:53–65. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “communication link” as “any communication session, protocol, link, connection, or path distinguishable from [another] communication link[].”” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“3. Combination of References As we discussed above, Petitioner’s combination takes the two-line” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,908,838 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,908,838
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.