• Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00937 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In sum, the Petition fails to demonstrate that the asserted prior art teaches, or renders obvious, the “causing a communication” limitation, let alone it being in response to the “determination” limitation. There is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to claim 1.” slip op. at 17

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

    “page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:4–6. But nothing in the claim suggests that the determination is optional or that it need not ever occur. For example, the “in response to” limitation of claim 1 does not use the conjunction “if,” as was the case in Schulhauser. See 2016 WL 6277792, *3 (interpreting “triggering an alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria” such that “triggering an alarm state” only needs to be performed “if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria.”).7 In fact, the prior step (a) of claim 1 explicitly requires the determination, reciting: “(a) determining whether a predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:1–3. As properly construed, the “in response to” language modifies the recited step of “causing a communication to be sent from the remote computing device to one or more dispatcher servers” such that the step must be “in response to a determination that the predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:4–8. In other words, “causing a communication” is a required step of the method of claim 1.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art also would have had “experience in the internet advertising industry” and urges us to adopt the same formulation as we adopted in the final written decision in IPR2023-00953. Prelim. Resp. 4. We agree with Patent Owner that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had such experience. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). The difference between the parties’ proposals as to the person of ordinary skill in the art, however, is immaterial here. Thus, for purposes of deciding the Petition, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

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

    “when the content area is visible.” (citing Ex. 1018, 10:16–18)); see also Ex. 1018, 5:11–14 (“In operation S202, the system identifies whether the event occurs. When the event occurs, the system performs operation S203, otherwise, the system waits for the event to occur. In this instance, the event may include a user enter event or a scrolling event.”). Whether a scrolling event occurs, however, does not satisfy the specific language of the claim reciting “a determination that the predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Nor does the Petition explain how it might.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,741,482
• Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00729 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because the Petition did not sufficiently explain how the asserted references teach claim 1’s control data limitation or establish unpatentability of the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The question before us is not whether we could come up with a way to understand how the asserted prior art could render the challenged claims unpatentable, but rather did Petitioner provide the arguments and evidence to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Here, Petitioner has not met that burden and as such, Petitioner has not shown by a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenDenied

    “contentions with sufficient particularity. As the Supreme Court has noted, “the petitioner is master of its complaint.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363 (2018). As such, Petitioner has the responsibility to make plain its challenges to the disputed claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). The Petition does not make clear Petitioner’s theory of the case. It is not the Board’s responsibility to weave together Petitioner’s evidence into a cohesive case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (stating that Petitioner “must include” a full statement supporting its challenge “including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”); see also Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Noting that a party’s burden “cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.”). We also agree that, to the extent Petitioner is relying on Dr. Forsyth to supply arguments and explanations missing from the Petition, such reliance is improper. For example, Petitioner’s string cite parenthetical for limitation [1.d] is less than one page, but the cited portions of Dr. Forsyth’s testimony comprise about 13 pages, along with an additional nine pages in the expanded claim chart of Appendix C. Pet. 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–167, Appendix C. Our rules expressly prohibit such incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). The Federal Circuit has held that “the ‘prohibition against incorporation of arguments from other documents serves various policy goals, including to ‘minimize the chance that an argument may be overlooked’ and to ‘eliminate[ ] abuses that arise from incorporation and combination.’” Parus Holdings, 70 F.4th at 1372 (citing General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App'x 654, 657 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). We decline to sift through Dr. Forsyth’s declaration in order to find the arguments that may support Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We also agree that, to the extent Petitioner is relying on Dr. Forsyth to supply arguments and explanations missing from the Petition, such reliance is improper. For example, Petitioner’s string cite parenthetical for limitation [1.d] is less than one page, but the cited portions of Dr. Forsyth’s testimony comprise about 13 pages, along with an additional nine pages in the expanded claim chart of Appendix C. Pet. 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–167, Appendix C. Our rules expressly prohibit such incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). The Federal Circuit has held that “the ‘prohibition against incorporation of arguments from other documents serves various policy goals, including to ‘minimize the chance that an argument may be overlooked’ and to ‘eliminate[ ] abuses that arise from incorporation and combination.’” Parus Holdings, 70 F.4th at 1372 (citing General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App'x 654, 657 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). We decline to sift through Dr. Forsyth’s declaration in order to find the arguments that may support Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to sufficiently explain how the combination of Loewen and Fujimoto teaches the “control data” in Petitioner’s proposed construction. Neither Petitioner’s claim chart for limitation [1.f] nor the other portions of the Petition identified in Petitioner’s Reply identify what disclosure in Loewen or Fujimoto corresponds to this “control data,” or why this “control data” would be inherent in the disclosures of those references. Additionally, as discussed above, to the extent Petitioner is relying on Dr. Forsyth’s Declaration to provide argument not set forth in the Petition, such reliance would be an improper incorporation by reference. And, in any event, Dr. Forsyth also does not identify with specificity what disclosures of Loewen or Fujimoto correspond to the “control data” in Petitioner’s proposed construction. Finally, Petitioner’s Reply does not explain how Loewen’s disclosure that the computer “triggers” the still cameras to capture images involves “control data,” or why one of ordinary skill would understand that “control data” is necessarily sent as part of this “triggering.” Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has failed to sufficiently show that the combination of Loewen and Fujimoto teaches element [1.f], and thus has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over this combination. Because Petitioner’s other grounds are all directed to claims that depend from claim 1, Petitioner has failed to sufficiently show unpatentability of those claims as well.” slip op. at 25

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,182,657
• Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View TechnologiesInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00716 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not explain with particularity how the cited references taught the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “petitioner is master of its complaint.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363 (2018). As such, Petitioner has the responsibility to make plain its challenges to the disputed claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). The Petition does not make clear Petitioner’s theory of the case. It is not the Board’s responsibility to weave together Petitioner’s evidence into a cohesive case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (stating that Petitioner “must include” a full statement supporting its challenge “including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”); see also Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Noting that a party’s burden “cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.”).” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “a bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent educational background, or at least five years of industry experience in software development. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its papers. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Based on the record before us, we see no need for express construction of any term for the purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”).” slip op. at 7

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner. As the Supreme Court has noted, “the petitioner is master of its complaint.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363 (2018). As such, Petitioner has the responsibility to make plain its challenges to the disputed claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). The Petition does not make clear Petitioner’s theory of the case. It is not the Board’s responsibility to weave together Petitioner’s evidence into a cohesive case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (stating that Petitioner “must include” a full statement supporting its challenge “including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”); see also Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Noting that a party’s burden “cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.”).” slip op. at 13

  Claim constructioncites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,671,648
• Netflix, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00628 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 8–11 as anticipated by Mehta, and claims 1–14 as obvious over Mehta and Schläpfer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that no claim terms require specific construction to resolve the unpatentability issues presented in the Petition. Pet. 23; PO Resp. 10–11. We agree and do not construe any terms.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Analysis We agree with Petitioner. Mehta discloses storing “functionally equivalent programs having the same name that are capable of running on multiple kinds of devices that even may be written using different languages.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 98. Mr. Wechselberger testifies that this disclosure shows that Mehta’s “MAS receives, stores and supports functionally equivalent programs capable of running on multiple devices because each program corresponds to a different device having different device capabilities (e.g., written using different languages).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 66. This testimony is consistent with that of Dr. Goodrich, who testifies that “each application has a single version made for a particular device type.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 66. Dr. Goodrich later testifies that paragraph 98 of Mehta describes that there could be two functionally equivalent programs with the same name that are compatible with a single user’s computer. Id. at ¶ 88; see PO Resp. 31–32 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 87–88). We do not credit this later testimony, because it is inconsistent with Dr. Goodrich’s earlier testimony that “each application,” or program of Mehta, is “made for a particular device type.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 66. We agree with Mr. Wechselberger and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood that Mehta’s disclosure of functionally equivalent programs having the same name that are capable of running on multiple kinds of devices means that each program corresponds to a different device having different capabilities. Further, Mehta discloses that “the MAS only lists those applications that are supported by the subscriber’s device. This allows the subscriber to avoid the problem of having to explicitly select a compatible application.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 117; see Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75, 77). Mr. Wechselberger testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood this disclosure to mean that the MAS provides the subscriber with only a single subscriber-appropriate version that will work for the subscriber. Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Although Patent Owner contends that Mehta is silent on whether only a single description would be provided if there were multiple implementations (PO Sur-Reply 10–11), we agree with Mr. Wechselberger and find that when multiple implementations have the same name, each implementation corresponds to a different device, and therefore, the MAS would only present to the subscriber the one implementation that works with the subscriber’s device. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 75, 77.” slip op. at 28

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “piece of content, while the versions of Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs are different implementations.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 39. Dr. Goodrich, in his deposition, when asked if “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’790 patent would also understand that Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Mac are also functionally equivalent, correct?” answered “Yes . . . . But they would be even stronger than simply functionally equivalent. They would be different implementations of the same product.” Ex. 1029, 43:14–24. However, later in his deposition, Dr. Goodrich testifies that Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Mac are separate applications, not different implementations of the same application. Ex. 1029, 48:1–20. We disagree with this later testimony. Neither Dr. Goodrich nor Patent Owner persuasively explains why Dr. Goodrich changed his unambiguous position from both his declaration and his earlier deposition testimony. For example, Dr. Goodrich testifies in his deposition that “for the Lion King example, a .MP3 and a .MOV are different implementations of the same product. They’re also functionally equivalent, but functionally equivalent is broader.” Ex. 1029, 45:7–11. Dr. Goodrich continues, “when Mehta is disclosing functionally equivalent, it is not referring to it as different implementations of the same product. Instead, it’s [describing] how to disambiguate [applications] not clustered in terms of implementations . . . based on other metadata.” Id. at 45:14–21. This explanation is unpersuasive because it is inconsistent with Dr. Goodrich’s declaration testimony, in which Dr. Goodrich explicitly testifies that the different versions of Lion King, as well as the different versions of Microsoft Word, are different implementations of the same product. Ex. 2020 ¶ 39. Specifically, in his declaration, Dr. Goodrich testifies that the “various versions of Lion King (such as an .mp3 file or an .mov file) are the implementations of the Lion King. For another example, . . . the versions of Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs are different implementations.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 39. Dr. Goodrich testifies again that “Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs” are “multiple implementations of an individual item of digital content.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 70. Further, the reason given in the explanation in his deposition, that Mehta needs to disambiguate applications that are not clustered in terms of implementations based on other metadata, would also apply to the different versions of Lion King, yet Dr. Goodrich consistently testifies that these different versions are different implementations, both in his declaration and in his deposition. Id.; Ex. 1029, 45:7–10. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that the inconsistent testimony of Dr. Goodrich appears to be an attempt to cure Patent Owner’s and Dr. Goodrich’s incomplete analysis of Mehta’s disclosure. See Reply 7–8. In particular, the Petition quotes Mehta’s disclosure that the MAS stores “functionally equivalent programs having the same name that are capable of running on multiple kinds of devices that even may be written using different languages.” Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 98). Dr. Goodrich addresses this disclosure by explaining that two applications, such as Microsoft Word and Apple Pages, are functionally equivalent but are two different applications, not multiple implementations of a single application. Ex. 2020 ¶ 70. In this analysis, Dr. Goodrich does not address the full disclosure of Mehta, which describes that the “functionally equivalent programs hav[e] the same name” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 98), such as Dr. Goodrich’s example of Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs. See id. Thus, although Dr. Goodrich is correct in testifying that some functionally equivalent programs, such as Microsoft Word and Apple Pages, are not different implementations of an item of digital content, he is also correct in testifying that “Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Word for Apple Macs” are “multiple implementations of an individual item of digital content.” Id. Yet Dr. Goodrich does not identify any difference between the multiple implementations of Microsoft Word and the functionally equivalent programs having the same name as described by Mehta.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,233,790 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,233,790
• Netflix, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00630 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, and 22 are anticipated by Cassin; all claims are also obvious over Cassin and Huston and over Huston.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require specific construction to resolve the unpatentability issues presented” in the Petition. Pet. 15–16. Similarly, Patent Owner contends that “no express construction of any term is required.” PO Resp. 18. For purposes of this decision, we do not construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 8

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

    “is included in the indication. See PO Resp. 40. However, the ’559 patent does not describe what is included in the claimed “listing.” Rather, throughout the disclosure of the ’559 patent, the phrase “the listing of one or more pieces of content stored in memory” or a variation thereof is repeated without any further elaboration. Ex. 1001, 3:13–15, 3:26–36, 12:22–26, 12:50–52, 13:29–30. For example, the Specification does not disclose that the listing of one piece of content includes the title of the piece of content, nor an identification number of the piece of content, nor any other information about the piece of content. The disclosed listing is no more than an item of information that indicates that a specific piece of content is stored in the memory of the terminal. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim term “a listing of one . . . piece[] of content stored in the memory,” read in light of the Specification of the ’559 patent, encompasses an item of information that indicates that a specific piece of content is stored in the memory of the terminal. We agree with Petitioner and find that Cassin’s indication that the client currently has the media content item describes an item of information that indicates that a piece of content is stored in the memory of the terminal. Therefore, Cassin’s indication that the client currently has the media item describes “a listing of one . . . piece[] of content stored in the memory” as claimed.” slip op. at 33

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

    “Analysis We agree with Petitioner and find that Cassin’s offer to download an item describes “a response . . . that instructs the terminal to perform one or more actions” as claimed. Reply 11 (citing Pet. 25–26), 13–14. Cassin discloses that the server uses the user information received from the client to query a database in the server for a list of content to which the user is entitled. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 162, 164. Cassin discloses that the server offers an item from the list to the client for downloading. Id. ¶ 163 (The server offers every item on the list), ¶ 164 (The server attempts to send an item on the list). Cassin discloses that the client checks to see if it already has the item. Id. ¶¶ 163, 164. If the client has the item, the client refuses the download offer. Id. If the client does not have the item, the client accepts the download of the item and stores the item in its content repository. Id. Thus, the client responds to the offer to download an item from the server by (a) checking to see if it has the offered item, and (b) either refusing the download if the client has the item or accepting the download if the client does not have the item. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner and find that “when the server offers a media item for the client to download, the server is ‘instructing the terminal to perform one or more actions to thereby control the flow of content.’” Reply 11 (citing Pet. 25–26). We agree with Petitioner that in response to the server’s offer, “the client will either ‘refuse the download’ (if it has the content) or ‘accepts the download of the media content item from the server and stores the media content in the local content repository’ (if the client does not have the content).” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 163). We agree with Petitioner and find that by checking to see if it has the item, and “by refusing or accepting the download offer, the client is doing ‘something to control the flow of content’ in response to the server’s instruction.” Id. (quoting PO Resp. 23). We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions to the contrary. In particular, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the server’s offer “has not instructed the client to do anything—the client takes action based on other factors (whether or not it already has the media content item).” PO Sur-Reply 3; see PO Resp. 31–32; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 91–93. We find that the client performs the actions of checking to see if it already has the item and, depending on whether it has the item, either accepting or refusing the offer, in response to receiving the offer from the server. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 163, 164; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–75. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the server’s offer instructs the client to (a) determine whether the client has the item and (b) depending on whether the client has the item, either accept or refuse the offer, which describes “instructing the terminal to perform one or more actions to thereby control the flow of content” as claimed. We further find that, because the offered item is from the server’s list which was determined using information from the user and information from the server’s database, the offer to download the item describes “a response to the content status . . . based upon the terminal status information and the server status information” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,440,559 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,440,559
• New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00778 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim: Clark and Mills each failed to disclose required limitations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies New Balance’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’749 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our patentability evaluations below.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00876 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 6 as obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey, and claim 5 as obvious over those references and ordinary skill.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1065 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s October, 27, 2023, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). Because it was not filed until March 29, 2024, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration. In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 1–2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s October 27, 2023, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1065).” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We find that both references are analogous art to the ’981 patent, as there is ample supporting evidence in the record, including that to which the Reply cites (citations identified in the immediately preceding paragraph). Indeed, Patent Owner does not dispute the merits of either argument. PO Sur-Reply 27–28. Rather, Patent Owner, argues that we “should not now permit Petitioner to rewrite its clearly-deficient Petition.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s Reply does not re-write its Petition. What Petitioner’s Reply does, in response to Patent Owner’s arguments, is precisely what Sanofi-Aventis contemplates as being proper in a reply brief. Indeed, in ruling against the petitioner in Sanofi-Aventis, the Federal Circuit specifically noted that the petitioner could have used its reply brief “to explain how [the prior art reference] is analogous to the [challenged] patent” but did not do so. 66 F.4th at 1379–1380. Here, in contrast, Petitioner used its Reply brief to explain how Linnarsson and McCloskey are analogous to the ’981 patent. Petitioner’s explanation in its Reply brief was both proper and persuasive.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence. McCloskey names four authors, all four of whom are named inventors of US 2007/0020640 A1, published Jan. 25, 2007 (“McCloskey ’640”). Ex. 1004, 1, Ex. 2001, code (76). Patent Owner concedes that McCloskey and McCloskey ’640 involve the same subject matter, having argued that the consideration of McCloskey ’640 supported discretionary denial of the Petition based on McCloskey. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 22 (“Petitioner’s secondary reference, an article by McCloskey, is at best cumulative of the far more detailed McCloskey ’640, which was raised by the Office and substantively discussed as the basis for a potential rejection using its asserted disclosure of a polynucleotide-specific tag—the same purported teaching for which Petitioner relies on McCloskey here.”). Notably, McCloskey ’640 was published on January 25, 2007. Ex. 2001, code (43). That is just days before McCloskey was received by BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS on January 31, 2007. See EX. 1004, 1 (“Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007”). In other words, it appears that the authors sought to have their research published in a scientific journal promptly after the subject matter of their research had been published by the Office. Further, the existence of McCloskey and its publication year of 2007 is confirmed by other sources in the record. See Ex. 1029, code (56) (United States Patent identifying as a cited reference: “McCloskey, et al. Encoding Pcr products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem Genet. Dec. 2007;45(11-12):761-7. Epub Oct. 23, 2007.”); Ex. 1053, code (56) (same); Ex. 1060 (article’s bibliography citing “McCloskey ML, Stöger R, Hansen RS, Laird CD. Encoding PCR products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem. Genet 2007;45:761–767. [PubMed: 17955361]”). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied with respect to” slip op. at 19

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

    “The Petition states that “Petitioner does not believe that any terms require explicit construction in view of the prior art being presented.” Pet. 36. Despite this stated position, Petitioner proposed constructions for “multiplex-identifier (MID)” and “providing a sample.” Id. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, stated that it “agrees that at this time, solely for purposes of an institution decision on the Petition, no terms require explicit construction.” Prelim. Resp. 45. In instituting the IPR, we found no need to provide an express construction of any claim term. Inst. Dec. 6. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner repeats that it “does not believe any term needs construction,” but nonetheless “applies the Petition’s definitions for ‘MID’ and ‘sample.’” PO Resp. 19. The Petition defines MID as “‘a tag or combination of tags associated with a polynucleotide whose identity (e.g., the tag DNA sequence) can be used to differentiate polynucleotides in a sample.’” Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:33–38). The Petition defines sample as “‘a quantity of material from a biological, environmental medical, or patient source in which detection, measurement, or labeling of target nucleic acids is sought.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:7– 10). We apply these same definitions in our analysis.” slip op. at 6

  Patent outcomesUS 10,155,981 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,155,981
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Netsocket, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00607 · APJ Richard M Lebovitz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 7, and 8 as obvious over Xiao, Schelen-1, and Gibson; claims 4–8 as obvious over those references and Schelen-2.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. For purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is also consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification of the ’698 patent and in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner states that “the Board would benefit from expressly construing the preamble of Claim 1 as limiting to make clear Claim 1’s bounds in the context of Petitioner’s arguments.” PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner’s main point, as we understand it, is that the preamble’s recitation of “wherein the bandwidth broker (BB) is associated to each network domain” is limiting because subsequent limitations in the claim, and dependent claims 2 and 3, “refer[] to the preamble’s statement that there is a bandwidth broker associated with each of the network domains involved in the path from source to destination networks.” Id. at 6–7. Petitioner responds that “[r]egardless of whether the preamble is limiting, the prior art renders obvious the preamble.” Pet. Reply 7. We agree with Patent Owner that the preamble to the claim is limiting, and treat it as such in this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not supported by persuasive evidence. While Xiao indicates that a bandwidth broker “may not be needed in MPLS-based ISP networks,” Xiao does not disparage or discredit its presence in such a network. “[T]he fact that there may be reasons a skilled artisan would prefer one over the other does not amount to a teaching away from the lesser preferred but still workable option.” Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs, Inc., 874 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 849 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“A reference that ‘merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into’ the claimed invention does not teach away.” (quoting Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Here, Patent Owner has not provided evidence that Xiao “criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]” the use of a bandwidth broker in an MPLS network. Patent Owner has also not established that a bandwidth broker would be inoperable when used in an MPLS-based network. “[A] reference may teach away from a use when that use would render the result inoperable.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To the contrary, the evidence of record points to the opposite. First, Xiao’s statement that bandwidth brokers might not be needed in an MPLS network, is also an indication that, on the other hand, they may be included in an MPLS network and therefore would be expected to be operable when combined. Indeed, the ’698 patent discloses that RATES in the MPLS domain performs admission control for a flat link state-domain, a characteristic of a bandwidth broker. Ex. 1001, 4:11–21.” slip op. at 26

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree that this is a new argument. In the Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s proposal that Gibson’s admission manager is a bandwidth broker. Institution Dec. 39 (citing Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:14–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 254–255)). The Decision also preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s proposal that Gibson’s administrative server and connection manager correspond to the claimed intra-domain broker. Institution Dec. 39 (citing Pet. 57–58). The Decision to Institute, summarizing Petitioner’s argument, explained that the admission manager (bandwidth broker) requests label paths from the administrative server (intra-domain broker), and that the administrative server works with the connection manager to register paths. Decision to Institute 40–41. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 274 (“Gibson discloses that the admission manager (‘bandwidth broker’) passes various resource requests to the administrative server and the connection manager (‘at least one intra-domain (1DB)’), which renders obvious ‘passing resource requests from the Bandwidth Broker (BB).’”); 277 (“As shown below at Gibson’s Figure 2, a ‘Request’ for a new LSP is passed from the admission manager (‘bandwidth broker’) to both the administrative server and also to the connection manager (collectively ‘at least one intra-domain (1DB)’).”). The statement by Dr. Houh in his second declaration “that Gibson’s coordination among the admission manager [BB] and the administrative server [IDB] is consistent with the claimed approach to LSP setup” reflects the original argument in the Petition that the admission manager (bandwidth broker) requests label paths from the administrative server (intra-domain broker). Institution Dec. 40–41. The argument has not changed and, in light of the complete record, we come to the same determination that we made in the Decision to Institute. The admission manager was described by Dr. Houh as requesting paths from the administrative server and the server working with the connection manager. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 274–277. Thus, there is “coordination” between the admission manager, and administrative server” slip op. at 66

  Patent outcomesUS 7,190,698 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,190,698
• Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00420 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–26, finding no adequate justification for a second parallel petition challenging the same claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. . . . In addition, multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases. To date, a substantial majority of patents have been challenged with a single petition. Practice Guide 59 (emphasis added). The Practice Guide provides examples of “circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. None of these examples are pertinent here. For example, a second petition might be justified “when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. Petitioner does not argue that the number of claims in the parallel litigation is “large.” And while Petitioner does argue that the prior art relied upon on might be antedated, Patent Owner responds by stipulating “that it will not attempt to antedate or disqualify the voluminous prior art relied upon by Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioner’s remaining arguments are no more persuasive. Responding to Petitioner’s argument that different prior art is involved in the two petitions, Patent Owner points out, “[n]early all parallel petitions involve different proposed prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 6. We agree. Petitioner’s desire to double the available word count is an insufficient justification for a second petition. As our Practice Guide cautions, “[t]wo or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time . . . may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” Practice Guide 59. This is especially concerning here, where the instituted trial in IPR2024-00419 will involve nine references and eleven grounds. Adding an additional fifteen grounds and nine references from this Petition to the mix would create an “unnecessary burden.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “In sum, in the words of our Practice Guide, Petitioner fails to show “why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” Practice Guide 60. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the facts presented by Petitioner justify a second petition challenging the same claims of the ’015 patent as the petition in IPR2024-00419. We therefore exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 11

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,564,015
• Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00419 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–26 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Baig, Banga507, Banga690, and McFarland.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Furthermore, we deny Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny petition or due to the alleged lack of particularity in the Petition. We therefore institute inter partes review on all claims and all grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDenied

    “Consistent with the Board’s practice for handling parallel petitions, Petitioner filed a Petition Ranking (Paper 3, “Notice”). See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019).2 In the Notice, Petitioner ranks this Petition first among the two petitions challenging the ’015 patent and the petition in IPR2024-00420 second. Notice 1. As is discussed in our separate decision in IPR2024-00420, entered concurrently, we have discretion to deny a parallel petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In view of Petitioner’s ranking and our assessment of the 1 Those ten additional petitions are the following: IPR2024-00413, IPR2024-00414, IPR2024-00415, IPR2024-00416, IPR2024-00417, IPR2024-00418, IPR2024-00421, IPR2024-00422, IPR2021-00423, and IPR2024-00424. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. issue in our institution decision in IPR2024-00420.” slip op. at 3

  • Other 314aDecided for petitioner

    “violate[s] the ‘particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(A)(3).” Prelim. Resp. 8–13. Patent Owner cites the Petition’s eleven grounds based on nine “express” prior art references and 33 other “shadow”9 references and exhibits. Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner asserts that “it is unclear which references Petitioner intends to be (or not to be) part of each of the grounds in its Petition.” Id. at 12. Patent Owner complains about the length of the petition and accompanying declarations. Id. (“The Petition itself is seventynine pages long (13,850 words), and attaches fifty-six exhibits. One of those exhibits is a 349 page declaration from one of Petitioner’s experts.”) (citations omitted). Patent Owner cites the Board’s informative decision in Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 at 24 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019). We decline to exercise our discretion to deny this Petition for lack of particularity. Patent Owner’s reliance on Adaptics is misplaced. Adaptics is distinguishable from this case. In Adaptics, the petitioner’s use of “and/or” in its challenges yielded “hundreds of possible combinations.” Adaptics, Paper 20 at 19. In addition, the petitioner in Adaptics asserted a “catch-all” ground asserting obviousness as an alternative if its extensive anticipation 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial. 9 Patent Owner explains that these are exhibits “attached to the Petition and expressly cited and relied upon by Petitioner’s experts.” Prelim. Resp. 11. particularity, the Board cited this “catch-all” ground as “the worst offender.” Id. at 18. While we agree that the Petition in this case could have been more concise, we disagree that it is so “voluminous and excessive” as to warrant denial for lack of sufficient particularity. See Adaptics, Paper 20 at 18. slip op. at 24

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

    “institution, Petitioner establishes sufficiently that the combination of Baig, Banga507, Banga690, and McFarland teaches or suggests each of the limitations recited in independent claim 1, and that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of those references. See Pet. 9–38. Petitioner asserts that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated and would have found it obvious to incorporate these teachings of Banga507, Banga690, and McFarland in Baig’s system to select targeted advertisements for groups of users demonstrating a pattern of accessing the Internet from a shared AP (e.g., at a coffee shop every Sunday) based on the group members’ collective preferences because doing so would have allowed Baig’s modified system to advantageously improve the relevance of the targeted advertisements provided to the group members.” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 39; Ex. 1015 ¶ 54; Lett Decl. ¶¶ 142–146). Petitioner presents an element-by element analysis supported by expert testimony. Id. at 15–30; Lett Decl. ¶¶ 151–237. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the merits of Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,564,015

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.