- Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01163 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray, with claims 10, 11, 13, and 20 also unpatentable over Morris, Ray, and Cox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art, except that Patent Owner states that the industry experience would have been “in analyzing and/or designing exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” PO Resp. 15–16. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’227 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 28 n.10. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4–6. According to Patent Owner, the Specification defines this claim term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 51:37– 40:59–6:4). In its briefing, Petitioner disagreed with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 2–4. However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction of it.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray because they provide complementary teachings and address similar objectives. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56–61, 13:20–30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 25, 33, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138). Petitioner also asserts that Morris contemplates use of an optical sensor, provides exercise data and “a human analog display that mimic[s] the user’s bouncing motion,” and includes a signal processing and display system with the necessary capabilities to implement the combination. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 139–143; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32–36, 50, 56–58, claims 29–37, Figs. 6, 11–12C); see also id. at 26–27 (asserting that “including multiple sensors in treadmills was a routine and well-known task”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 159–162). Petitioner further asserts that Ray expressly teaches that “its user validation and motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144). Finally, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proposed combination because it would have improved Morris’ treadmill to add both “Ray’s motivational image that showed a thinner image of the user as the intensity and duration of exercise increased” and Ray’s ability to share exercise data with a remote location. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:11–22, 11:55–59, 13:50–57; Ex. 1006 ¶ 50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138, 145); see also id. at 16 (arguing that detection of a user’s presence could provide benefits, including motivation (citing Ex. 1004, 8:22–26, 11:56–61; Ex. 1006 ¶ 25)), 41 (arguing that data transmission was “a well-known and routine task” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 188–189)). Patent Owner does not dispute these contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–18, 26–27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138, 140–145, 161, 189; see also, e.g., Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 60–71), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosure. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,032,227 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,227 - PTAB · Nov 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00777 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 16–27 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“35 U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel district-court action, which Patent Owner notes has scheduled trial date of May 19, 2025. See Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner, however, has stipulated not to pursue in the district court action “the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Paper 10, 1 (Petitioner’s Sotera Stipulation). The Office recognizes that such stipulations mitigate concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the Board and the district court. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022) (“Director’s Interim Procedure”),13 at 7–8. Thus, given Petitioner’s stipulation we decline to discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a) based on parallel litigation.” slip op. at 7
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“institution under § 314(a) because this is the second proceeding challenging the ’815 patent and Petitioner has not justified two such challenges. Paper 8 (Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioners’ Notice Ranking Multiple Petitions). Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions, noting that this proceeding involves a second petition challenging the ’815 patent, after a petition in IPR2024-00735 challenged claims 1–15. Paper 4 (“Pet. Ranking”). Petitioner’s Ranking asserts that the two petitions challenge different claims, and that the 27 collectively challenged claims are voluminous, occupying approximately six columns of the ’815 patent. Pet. Ranking 2. We note also that the independent claims challenged in this proceeding include limitations not present in the claims challenged in the -735 IPR, such as multiple user profiles and encrypted video information. See Ex. 1001, claims 16, 21. We conclude that the ’815 patent’s claims justify two petitions based on a combination of the number of 13 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. limitations and the number of claims. We therefore decline to discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a) based on multiple parallel petitions.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Kaplan and Bryant were included on an Information Disclosure Statement and thus were presented, but without a substantive discussion during prosecution, we cannot understand how the Office considered the references. Based on Petitioner’s contentions as discussed below, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in considering Kaplan and Bryant. See Pet. 100. The Horn–Baumgartner–Candelore combinations were not presented during prosecution, and Patent Owner has not shown that Horn’s disclosures are cumulative to references that were considered. Patent Owner provides figures from Horn and Honkaniemi (Ex. 2012), a reference considered in a related prosecution (Prelim. Resp. 6–7), but those figures alone do not suffice to demonstrate sufficient similarity between the two references’ disclosures. Patent Owner makes a similarly unpersuasive showing for Baumgartner and Volk (Ex. 2013), a reference “considered during examination.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8. None of those assertions persuade us that art substantially the same as the Horn–Baumgartner–Candelore grounds previously were presented to the Office. As such, we do not discretionarily deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts that ordinarily skilled artisans “would have held a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Computer Engineering, or a related field, and two years of practical experience in digital data management.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1009, 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 67). While Patent Owner acknowledges there are slight differences between their definition and Petitioner’s, Patent Owner concedes there is no practical difference between the two definitions. Prelim. Resp. 23. At this stage, we see no reason to depart from Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’815 patent.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,017,815 - PTAB · Nov 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00867 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 84 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Nozaki-Haitani obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Trademark Office issued an Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (“Guidance Memo”)3 to clarify “the [Board’s] current application of Fintiv to discretionary institutions where there is parallel litigation” and to “confirm[] that the precedential import of Fintiv is limited to the facts of that case.” Guidance Memo 2. In particular, the Memorandum states that the Board will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (iii) where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Id. at 9 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“3. Discussion We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that “Nozaki was considered during . . . reexamination of the ’848 Patent.” Prelim. Resp 4 (citing Ex. 1004, 165–190). To support this assertion, Patent Owner cites to 25 pages of the ’848 reexamination file (see Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 1004, 165–190), arguing that “the grounds presented by Petitioner are duplicative of the art and arguments considered by the Examiner during . . . reexamination of the ’848 patent” (Prelim. Resp. 6), and concluding that “many of Petitioner’s arguments are simply a rehash of the reexamination request that was thoroughly considered by the Office during reexamination” (id. at 12). Patent Owner, however, provides no specific examples, comparisons, or analysis between the evidence and arguments concerning Nozaki presented in the Petition with the evidence and arguments concerning Nozaki ostensibly considered during the ’848 patent reexamination. Indeed, the only mention of “Nozaki” we can discern in the 25 pages of the ’848 reexamination file cited by Patent Owner are two listings of “Nozaki” patents appearing on pages 171 and 186 of the reexamination file. ’108”); Nozaki U.S. Patent 8,538,252 (“Nozaki ’252”)). These two “Nozaki” patents, however, are not the same Nozaki reference asserted by the Petitioner as prior art in the Petition. See Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1006, WO 2007/060980 (“Nozaki ’980”)). The Nozaki reference asserted by Petitioner in the Petition is titled, “Electronic Camera and Image Processing Device,” is directed to an “electronic camera compris[ing] an image sensor, an image processing section, a face detecting section, a controlling section, a face image creating section, or a face recognizing data creating section, and a recording section,” contains 19 figures and has 57 claims. See Ex. 1006, code (57) Abstr., ¶ 41, pgs. 52–60.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person having “a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, with at least two to three years of experience in the field of image processing.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 35). Petitioner further asserts that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 22. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears to be consistent with the subject matter of the ’848 patent. This is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bederson. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 35. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. D. Claim Construction” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, Petitioner contends that “all claim terms in the Challenged Claims should be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. 5. Patent Owner states that “[g]iven the multiple reasons why the Petition should not be instituted, including 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, and to minimize the disputes that the Board needs to address at this preliminary stage, for the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner simply applies Petitioner’s own constructions to show how the Petitioner has not met its burden under 37 CFR § 42.104(b)(4).” Prelim. Resp. 25. For purposes of this Decision and based on this preliminary record, we determine that no claim term requires express construction at this stage of the proceeding. E. Patentability Challenges” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,176,848 - PTAB · Nov 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00717 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–11 on all four §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)InstitutedDenied
“On September 12, 2024, with the Board’s authorization, Petitioner filed such a stipulation. Paper 8. Petitioner’s stipulation reads: In accordance with the Board’s precedential decision in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020‐01019, Paper 12 at 18‐19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Petitioners) stipulate that if the Board institutes inter partes review in this proceeding, IPR2024-00717, then Petitioners will not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding, Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS, the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.. Id. Given that the language of Petitioner’s stipulation substantively tracks the stipulation language set out in the Guidance Memo, we decline to exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution. B.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“having “a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with camera technology.” Pet. 5. Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Guidash, provides supporting testimony as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–30. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 14. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears to be consistent with the subject matter of the ’757 patent. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. C.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Moreover, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the This is particularly relevant here, where Petitioner explains that its rationale to combine the teachings of Chinn, Takahashi, and EX-V7 derives, in part, from the teachings of the references themselves. See, e.g., Pet. 10–11 (“Moreover, both Chinn and Takahashi disclose delayed image capture after a voice command is given,” and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to look at Takahashi and EX-V7 to improve Chinn, and vice-versa.”). Based upon the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of institution that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time period would have had a reasoned basis for combining the teachings of Chinn, Takahashi, and EX-V7 in the manner proffered and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in that endeavor.” slip op. at 33
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,223,757 - PTAB · Nov 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00735 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–15 based on the petition’s asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“1. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner requests that we discretionarily deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel district court action. See Prelim. Resp. 15. Petitioner, however, has stipulated not to pursue in the district court action “the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Paper 10, 1 (Petitioner’s Sotera Stipulation). The Office recognizes that such stipulations mitigate concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the Board and the district court. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022) (“Director’s Interim Procedure”),10 at 7–8. Thus, given Petitioner’s stipulation we decline to discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Kaplan and Bryant were included on an Information Disclosure Statement and thus were presented, but without a substantive discussion during prosecution, we cannot understand how the Office considered the references. Based on Petitioner’s contentions as discussed below, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in considering Kaplan and Bryant. See Pet. 97. The Horn–Baumgartner combination was not considered during prosecution, and Patent Owner has not shown that Horn’s disclosures are cumulative to references that were considered. Patent Owner provides figures from Horn and Honkaniemi (Ex. 2012), a reference considered in a related prosecution (Prelim. Resp. 6–7), but those figures alone do not suffice to demonstrate sufficient similarity between the two references’ disclosures. Patent Owner makes a similarly unpersuasive showing for Baumgartner and Volk (Ex. 2013), a reference “considered during examination.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8. None of those assertions persuade us that art substantially the same as the Horn–Baumgartner grounds previously were presented to the Office. As such, we do not discretionarily deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim. We have evaluated all of the parties’ submissions and determine that the record supports institution. This decision to institute trial is not a final decision as to patentability of any challenged claim, or any factual or legal issue underlying patentability. Any final decision will be based on the full record developed during trial. We expressly inform Patent Owner that any argument not asserted in a timely filed Response or another manner permitted during trial shall be deemed forfeited or waived, regardless of whether the argument was presented in the Preliminary Response. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–15 of the ’815 patent is instituted on the grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and two years of practical experience in digital data management.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1009, 9; Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). While Patent Owner acknowledges there are slight differences between their definition and Petitioner’s, Patent Owner concedes there is no practical difference between the two definitions. Prelim. Resp. 23. At this stage, we see no reason to depart from Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’815 patent.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,017,815 - PTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00828 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.” After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, as well as the evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14 of the ’086 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the relied-on teachings of Rogers and Rosenberg. Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1003 (Nielsen Decl.) ¶¶ 86–91; Ex. 1006, code (57) (Abstract), 3:4–10, 4:15–19, 4:48– 62,7:59–62, Figs. 1, 2A; Ex. 1007, code (57) (Abstract), ¶¶ 30, 49, 50, Fig. 1). With regard to motivation to combine, the Petition provides: Both references are directed to allowing users to input information via touchsurface technology and are analogous art to the ’086 patent. . . . [A] POSITA would have found Rogers and Rosenberg to be compatible because of the technical similarity of their teachings, and a POSITA would have further recognized that Rosenberg’s finger orientation disclosures, applied to Rogers’ graphical passcode disclosures, would facilitate a “natural and intuitive” means of implementing the teachings of Rogers. A POSITA therefore would have been motivated to look to Rosenberg to improve Rogers, and vice-versa. . . . A POSITA . . . would have considered the disclosures in Rosenberg and been motivated to modify Rogers’ “large fingertip and a small stylus tip” example so that it instead used the “natural and intuitive” finger pad versus finger end distinction discussed in Rosenberg. A POSITA would have found this modification to be a simple substitution of elements well known in the art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the benefits disclosed in Rosenberg by making the modification, which involved only routine skill. . . . [A]dding finger end and finger pad touch detection to Rogers would involve no more than applying a known technique (i.e., finger end and finger pad touch detection/distinction as taught by Rosenberg) to a known device ready for improvement (Rogers’ apparatus having “large fingertip and a small stylus tip” capabilities) to yield predictable results (simple to use touch screen interface with multipoint targeting and multi-finger gesturing). . . . It also would have been obvious to combine Rogers with Rosenberg because both references disclose touch screen interfaces that detect a contact area of a finger. . . . A POSITA would have considered Rosenberg’s disclosures and been motivated to modify the “graphical passcode” features of Rogers so that the disclosed device is capable of detecting information input by a pad or end of a finger, because it would provide a “generally easily distinguishable” basis upon which to program the device disclosed in Rogers to detect a “measurable parameter” based on “contact area.” A POSITA would have further recognized that these features of Rogers and Rosenberg could be successfully combined because both references teach a “calibration” mode in which the user trains the device to recognize a specific range of input parameters that allows for some variation in input while remaining within acceptable tolerances. . . . A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rogers in this manner for at least the same reasons.” slip op. at 32
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“The Guidance Memo provides that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Guidance Memo 7. Petitioner has presented such a stipulation in this proceeding. Paper 8 (Petitioner’s Sotera Stipulation). Petitioner’s Stipulation states: In accordance with the Board’s precedential decision in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020‐01019, Paper 13 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. 12 at 18‐19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Petitioners) stipulate that if the Board institutes inter partes review in this proceeding, IPR2024-00828, then Petitioners will not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding, Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS, the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Id. at 1. For this reason, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under Section 314(a).” slip op. at 44
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“[a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were 14 Chapter 31 (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) relates to inter partes review. presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 45
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,982,086 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00745 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 45–47, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 68, and 69 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Buibas and Sinyavskiy.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Considering the subject matter of the ’474 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’474 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that, at this stage of the proceeding, “no formal constructions are presently necessary,” and that it “maps the prior art in this Petition in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s allegations of infringement before the district court.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1017; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25. Patent Owner does not propose a claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction of any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill “would have reasonably expected success implementing the combination, especially as Buibas and Sinyavskiy describe highly similar systems involving spiking neural networks used for training/operating robots.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Indeed, Petitioner contends, “Buibas itself confirms that its spiking neural network can be partitioned, while Sinyavskiy provides the details for doing so.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). In response, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is flawed because “there is no articulated reasoning regarding what specific element of claim 45 Buibas . . . does not disclose.” Prelim. Resp. 19–20. In other words, according to Patent Owner, Petitioner “failed to perform a proper obviousness analysis because Petitioner has failed to identify anything in the claims that Buibas lacks disclosure of for Ground 1A.” Id. at 20. Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has set forth sufficient reasoning to support a motivation to combine Buibas and Sinyavskiy for purposes of institution, as well as sufficient reasoning to support the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is flawed because it fails to identify what is lacking in Buibas’s disclosure. To the contrary, Petitioner explains that Buibas “broadly suggests” that its spiking neural networks “can be partitioned into modules for different tasks or behaviors” but “discloses little detail about the partitioning,” and that Sinyavskiy’s more detailed disclosure of partitioning spiking neural networks would fill in these details. See Pet. 12–13, 14–15, 24. Petitioner also relies on Sinyavskiy’s more detailed disclosures concerning partitioning the network to satisfy limitations [45.1] and [45.6]. Id. at 23–27, 35. Thus, Petitioner has sufficiently identified what is missing in Buibas (a detailed disclosure of partitioning spiking neural networks) and how that missing information is provided by Sinyavskiy (by disclosure of specific techniques for partitioning spiking networks).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,663,474 - PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00730 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 were anticipated or obvious over Lee or Zheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has not met this standard. Therefore, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“capability to include one or both first CBs and second CBs within any one of the CBGs. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. The plain and ordinary meaning of the CB/CBG limitation, however, does not provide such a requirement. Instead, the plain and ordinary meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” simply requires that at least one CBG contain each CB. Although the description in the Specification of the configuration example of Figure 11(c) arguably describes the capacity of a system to include the first and second CBs in any one of CBGs, the Specification’s permissive language does not appear in the challenged claims. That description reads:” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,196,509 - Samsung Display Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00771 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 7 are unpatentable over Kim and Steer; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have [had] a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field, with 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in OLED display engineering or comparable industry.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–45). Petitioner further asserts that “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, and “applies Petitioner’s definition.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 44). Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 13) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, and because the parties apply the same definition at trial, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“3. Analysis Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Both parties have presented their understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “referenced to” and “independent of.” In the Institution Decision, we requested that “[i]f there is a dispute over the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms, the parties should address those issues during trial.” Dec. 14–15 n.6. On this record, the parties do not dispute each other’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms, and, based upon the parties’ arguments, we determine that no express construction of the claim terms is necessary to resolve the controversy, but address the parties’ arguments in the context of the prior art below.6” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“(1) Whether Kim teaches a “video driver receiving the video signal and generating a video drive signal indicative of the video signal” We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown that the identified portion of Kim’s Figure 10 teaches the recited “video driver” and “generat[es] a video signal.” We find particularly persuasive Petitioner’s annotated comparison of Figure 4 of the ’521 patent as compared to Kim’s Figure 10 (both reproduced above), which illustrates the similarities between the ’521 patent and Kim. See Pet. 25–28. As set forth by Petitioner, Kim’s voltage at node A4 (video drive signal generated by the video driver identified in the dark green box) is supplied to the gate of transistor M31, driving the organic light emitting diode OLED by the video driver circuitry identified in the dark green box, similar to how voltage v(t) 322 (video drive signal) is supplied to the gate of transistor M1 driving the OLED 32 by video driver 32 in Figure 4 of the ’521 patent. Id. at 29.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“such as that it is a “simpler design,” would be “an obvious design choice,” “would simplify material needs and cost,” was “well-known,” was a “trivial design change,” would “provide immunity to power source noise,” and “would allow rejection of other power supply noise, such as drift.” Pet. 68– 70. However, several of these reasons focus on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to do, rather than what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention. See Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068– 69 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding problematic that “the Board focused on what a skilled artisan would have been able to do, rather than what a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention”); InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We find Petitioner’s arguments unpersuasive because they amount to little more than an assertion that the recited limitations could have been easily achieved. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed modification of Hayafuji is a redesign that appears to be the result of hindsight rather than based upon a persuasive reason for the modification. See Sur-reply 15–18. Petitioner’s argument that the modification involves adding to the functionality of Hayafuji by using an obvious variation of the circuitry Hayafuji already discloses that eliminates both the ripple component and the non-ripple component (see Reply 20–21) supports the conclusion that the proposed modifications were improperly informed by the requirements of the claim. For example, Dr. Kattamis’s testimony describes the proposed modifications, which include removing the ripple component extraction circuit and rewiring the existing circuit. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 270–273, 321–331. We find that the extent of the proposed modifications is more suggestive of hindsight than obviousness. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”); InTouch, 751 F.3d at 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (criticizing use of the challenged patent as a “roadmap” for putting what the expert referred to as “pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’” together).” slip op. at 57
Patent outcomesUS 7,259,521 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,259,521 - PTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00644 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5, 7, and 8 were unpatentable over R2-1702708, which was not shown to be a prior-art printed publication.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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. § 42.108(c) (2023). Applying that standard, we do not institute an inter partes review, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). If the petition relies on an alleged printed publication, “at the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,134,400
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.