- PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01411 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Johnson renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute 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) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2023). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’705 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityOther
“The parties identify themselves as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2. In addition, Petitioner states that it “is a subsidiary of Hisense Group,” and that “[o]ther privies or real parties in interest include companies within the Hisense Group, including Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investment Co., Ltd.; Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd.; Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.; Hisense International (HK) Co., Ltd.; Hisense International Co., Ltd.; [and] TVS REGZA Corporation.” Pet. 1.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we find in applying either parties’ definition for what comprises the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 8–9. This definition for the level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’705 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340–41, 51,343 (Oct. 11, 2018). In applying such standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Here, the parties agree that no claim terms require construction. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Thus, for purposes of our Decision on Institution, we need not provide an express construction of any claim term. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,872,705 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01412 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5, 11–13, 16, 17, 47, and 48 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute 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) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2023). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’710 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we find in applying either parties’ definition for what comprises the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 10. This definition for the level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’710 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Here, the parties do not submit any claim terms for construction. Pet. 10; see generally Prelim. Resp. Thus, for purposes of our Decision on Institution, we see no need to provide an express construction of any term. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,330,710 - PTAB · Apr 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00028 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Flusberg, Flusberg ’338, and PacBio-BAM.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In assessing whether to exercise the Board’s authority to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board considers a two-part analysis. Advanced Bionics at 8–9. First, the Board considers whether “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. Id. at 8. If so, the Board then considers whether the petition demonstrates that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. In applying the two-part framework, the Board considers several nonexclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, No. IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“G. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to obviousness over Flusberg, Flusberg ’338, and PacBio-BAM. H. Remaining Claims of Ground 1 and Grounds 2–4 Patent Owner does not present any arguments specific to any claim beyond claim 1. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1 (“Because all other asserted Grounds rely upon prevailing on Ground 1 for claim 1, all other grounds fail for the same reasons.”). In any event, the threshold for institution is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to any single claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the [P]etitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). Thus, because we have decided to grant review of claim 1, we do the same for all claims challenged and all grounds raised. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is granted and inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,091,794 B2 on the grounds presented; and” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Other
“Petitioner argues that an input data structure having the recited combination of properties would have been obvious, in part, because all such properties were identified and could be measured in the prior art. For example, according to Petitioner, “[i]n addition to encoding the identity and relative locations of each nucleotide, PacBio-BAM encodes the PW and IPD of each nucleotide as integer arrays.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1011, 8). This argument is supported by the cited evidence. Under a section titled “Encoding of kinetics pulse features,” PacBio-BAM states: “Interpulse duration (IPD) and pulsewidth are measured in frames [and] . . . may be encoded in BAM read tags” and further states such information relates to “base modification detection.” Ex. 1011, 8. Petitioner also notes that Flusberg and Flusberg ’338 teach that PW and IPD are affected by nucleotide modifications. Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1007, 66:46–67:4, 9:41–46; 22:49–54; Figs. 12, 13, and 15–19; Ex. 1006, 462, Fig. 3). For example, Flusberg ’338 teaches: In certain aspects, the invention provides a general-purpose approach to discriminating between Me+ and Me- using features in a real-time sequencing-by-synthesis trace comprising signals emitted during the incorporation of optically detectable nucleotides into a nascent strand by a polymerase enzyme. . . . A first stage of this approach includes the development of a classifier for distinguishing methylated from unmethylated cytosines in a nucleic acid template. A set of features is measured for every pulse (discrete event or signal) in the trace. For example, a set of measurable features might be {pulse width, pulse duration, pulse height, pulse amplitude variability}. Ex. 1007, 64:46–59 (emphasis added). Similarly, Flusberg states: Fluorescence pulses in SMRT sequencing are characterized not only by their emission spectra but also by their duration and by the interval between successive pulses. These metrics, defined here as pulse width and interpulse duration (IPD), add valuable information about DNA polymerase kinetics. Pulse width is a function of all kinetic steps after nucleotide binding and up to fluorophore release, and IPD is determined by the kinetics of nucleotide binding and polymerase translocation. We have previously demonstrated that SMRT sequencing polymerase synthesis rates are sensitive to DNA primary and secondary structure. Therefore, we hypothesized that methylated bases in a DNA template might be detected directly on the principle that their presence affects polymerase kinetics during SMRT sequencing. Ex. 1006, 462 (emphasis added; end notes omitted). Petitioner argues that “PacBio-BAM teaches creating an input data” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“4. Reason To Combine Petitioner points out that (1) each of Flusberg and Flusberg ’338 teach methods of detecting nucleotide modifications using SMRT sequencing, and (2) PacBio-BAM teaches a BAM file containing values for all claimed properties generated in the course of SMRT sequencing. Pet. 29. Petitioner argues with supporting evidence, that it would have been obvious “to use PacBio’s BAM file containing the recited properties as an input data structure, as expressly suggested in PacBio-BAM.” Id. at 29–30; see also Ex. 1002 ¶82 (Dr. Dessimoz providing his opinion in support of the combination); Pet. 30–33 (providing additional arguments and evidence to support the combination). Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner fails to provide motivation to combine Flusberg with the other two references of Ground 1 to arrive at the claimed invention.” Prelim. Resp. 45. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner makes no argument for why Flusberg and the ’338 patent would be combined, let alone why a POSITA would selectively combine various aspects of each reference and include features not used in either reference to arrive.” Id. Patent Owner premises its argument on a purported failure by Flusberg ’338 to incorporate by reference the entire Flusberg reference as opposed to limited aspects of its. Id. at 45–46. Flusberg ’338 patent twice states that Flusberg is “incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.” Ex. 1007, 77:30–24, 78:58–66. Patent Owner argues that what is incorporated by reference is only the specific content of Flusberg that is mentioned by Flusberg ’338. Prelim. Resp. 46. Patent Owner cites Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., No. IPR2017-01407, 2018 WL 6321395, at *18–19 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) in support. Id. Patent Owner additionally points out that, if either incorporation by reference successfully incorporated the entire Flusberg disclosure, then the other incorporation by reference would be superfluous. Prelim. Resp. 46–47. This last point is logical, but the totality of the facts, as discussed below, better support Petitioner’s position. In Nautilus, the Board interpreted the following incorporation by reference language: “The ’088 Application provides ‘One example of customizing a work-out that may be utilized in conjunction with the exercise apparatus described herein is set forth in U.S. Patent Application No. 13/754,361, filed on Jan. 30, 2013, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.’” Nautilus, 2018 WL 6321395, at *19. The Board found that the word “disclosure” could refer to either the example being discussed or the entire disclosure of the ’088 Application, and the Board ultimately held that what was incorporated by reference was the example of customizing a work-out only and not the entirety of the ’088 Application. Id. Nautilus is not precedential. Moreover, its facts are different. Here, we have statements that Flusberg is incorporated by reference both “in its entirety” and “for all purposes.” Ex. 1007, 77:30–24, 78:58–66. Further, the Board’s holding in Nautilus explicitly hinged on its understanding of the word “disclosure” in the following phrase: “the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.” Nautilus, 2018 WL 6321395, at *19. The Board held that, “as a matter of grammar, the antecedent of the ‘disclosure’ being incorporated could be either the application or ‘one example’ that is described in the application.” Id. Here, the rules of grammar contradict Patent Owner’s position, rather than support it. For example, the first incorporation by reference states: “Further details on the detection of N6-MeA, as well as other modifications within a template nucleic acid, are provided in Flusberg, et al. (2010) Nature Methods 7(6):461–465, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.” Ex. 1007, 77:30–24 (emphasis added). The word “its” can refer to only one thing, Flusberg itself, as the alternative would be plural nouns, namely “details” and “other modifications,” and thus inconsistent with the singular “its.” In sum, we find that, on the current record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown a motivation to combine Flusberg and Flusberg ’338 with PacBio- BAM.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,091,794 - Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedRehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claim 3 unpatentable as obvious over Eray-WO799, revising the final written decision’s outcome for that claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“As stated in our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art and found that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Dec. 6–7 (citing Pet. 8; PO Resp. 18). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Daniel van der Weide, supported Petitioner’s definition, which was adopted for this proceeding. Ex. 1003 ¶ 25. Dr. van der Weide defined himself as “a person of more than ordinary skill in the art during the relevant timeframe” because “[b]y 2010, [he] held a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, and [he] had at least” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,165,240 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2023-01442 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under either anticipation ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary 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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. In addition, for the reasons stated on the merits of the Petition, we do not reach the question of whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We, therefore, deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art “would have been an individual who, as of July 18, 2002, the filing date of the ’667 Patent, had either: (1) a Bachelor’s Degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and at least one year of related practical experience; or (2) at least four years of practical experience in data management.” Pet. 9 (citing Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not provide a description of the person of ordinary skill or dispute Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner “gives the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification and prosecution history as would have been read by a [person of ordinary skill].” Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not comment on claim construction. We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We do not see the need to construe claim terms to resolve the issues in dispute. E. Description of the Prior Art References” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“The Federal Circuit addressed the legal standard for anticipation in Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a prior art reference will anticipate if it ‘disclose[s] each and every element of the claimed invention . . . arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.’” 815 F.3d at 1341 (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,020,667 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 2, 2024 · IPR2023-01441 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter 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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny institution of 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
“persuasive. As both parties note, the phrase in question recites “creating” a second data miner, which requires the generation of a new data miner. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that during prosecution of the ’526 patent prior art references were “expressly distinguished” because the prior art merely “pick[ed] a pre-existing search engine” or fell short because “no new miners [were] created.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 49 (citing Ex. 1002, 83, 34); accord Ex. 2001 ¶ 57 (similar testimony from Patent Owner’s declarant). We agree with the parties that this phrase requires the generation of a new data miner. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction falls short because it does not properly address the requirement that the second data miner be created “in response to the customer request.” Patent Owner states, and we agree, that “provid[ing] customized results to the user based on the customized parameters of the user search request” does not address the requirement that the second data miner be created “in response to” a customer request. Prelim. Resp. 9. In support of Patent Owner’s assertions, Patent Owner’s declarant points out that “as described with reference to FIG. 2 of the ’526 Patent, ‘customer requests for information can be received’ at block 66 and then at block 68, [‘]additional low level miners can be written in response, or high level miners, if required and not yet written, can be created.’” Ex. 2001 ¶ 61 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:32–35) (emphasis added). As stated in the ’526 patent a “‘miner’ or ‘data mining element’ is . . . an analysis engine that generates an output, and specifically an output that can include one or more keys representing characteristics of an entity, using a set of rules.” Ex. 1001, 5:63–66. The ’526 patent further notes that “the data miners are modular components that have specific input and output specifications.” Id. at 6:25–26. Further, “[m]iners are specified in terms of the data, usually as indicated by the below-described keys, that must be available when they start, and the data (including other keys) that they will create during successful processing.” Id. at 6:36–40. Thus, our review of the intrinsic record persuades us that creation of a second data miner requires the creation of a new “analysis engine,” and not just the provision of customized parameters to an existing “analysis engine.” Therefore, for the purposes of this decision, we construe the phrase “creating at least a second data miner in response to the customer request for information,” to require (1) the creation of at least one new second data miner, (2) that this creation be done in response to a customer request.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“As to the first argument, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Jacobsen’s site ranking is created in response to a user request. Jacobsen’s site ranking feature “analyzes the Internet (i.e., the sites found) to determine the degree to which sites have been found interesting by others in the desired context/profession.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 67. A word score is saved for each word on each page (i.e., except for stop words, as discussed above). When a user enters a query, the inventive SSSE determines a set of (relevant) pages that contain the query terms. For each page, the word scores are summed for the words of the query to compute a site ranking for that page. The site rankings for the pages are then used in determining how to display the search results to the user. Id. ¶ 69. Based on our review of Jacobsen’s disclosures, we are persuaded that the query is an input to the site ranking feature. As described in the ’526 specification, a “‘miner’' or ‘data mining element’ is . . . an analysis engine that generates an output, and specifically an output that can include one or more keys representing characteristics of an entity, using a set of rules.” Ex. 1001, 5:63–66 (emphasis added). Site ranking in Jacobsen is performed after a user query, but on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown that the analysis engine used to rank the sites is not created “in response to” the user query. See also Pet. 14 n. 7 (stating that Jacobsen discloses “the use of a pre-existing template to search the results of a first data miner”). In addition, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the site ranking feature in Jacobsen would disclose a data miner as recited in the claims. The ’526 patent describes prior art systems that “generat[ed] an inverted index of words that occur on Web pages.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–23. User queries were provided with output based on that index and the results “returned are usually ranked by relevance using e.g., link information or key word frequency of occurrence.” Id. at 1:29–31. Petitioner’s declarant describes these disclosures are applicant admitted prior art. Ex. 1008 ¶ 52. The ’526 patent criticizes this prior method as inefficient because, despite the ranking “finding particular types of information typically entails a great deal of mundane sifting through query results by a person” and this process is “labor-intensive and mundane,” ranking “can consume an excessive’ amount of time.” Ex. 1001, 1:31–35, 1:42–43, 2:5–6. In contrast, the ’526 patent’s system purportedly “integrates the knowledge of many experts to sift through a large corpus of data to respond to what might be relatively complex requests for information.” Id. at 3:9–11. Its data miners are analysis engines that operate based on expert rules. Id. at code (57), 5:63– 66. Petitioner’s allegations have not persuaded us that Jacobsen’s site ranking feature overcomes the problems of the prior art ranking system. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we determine that” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success
“E. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 2 and 35 Over Jacobsen, and Over Jacobsen and Jaramillo, and Alleged Obviousness of Claims 6–9, 11, 16, 17, 39–42, 44, 49, and 50 Over Jacobsen and Hegli Petitioner asserts that dependent claims 2 and 35 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jacobsen, and as obvious over Jacobsen and Jaramillo. Pet. 4, 32–38. Petitioner also asserts that dependent claims 6–9, 11, 16, 17, 39–42, 44, 49, and 50 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jacobsen and Hegli. Pet. 4, 38–50. Petitioner’s assertions here rely on the same disclosures from Jacobsen regarding the above discussed independent claims and do not remedy the above noted deficiency. As such, on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s Jacobsen-based challenges to claims 2, 6–9, 11, 16, 17, 35, 39–42, 44, 49, and 50. F. Alleged Anticipation of Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 34, 39, 42, 44, 46,” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,010,526 - PTAB · Apr 2, 2024 · IPR2023-01410 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–7 and 9–12 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim under either §103 combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “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). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’075 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’075 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a graduate degree in mechanical engineering, physics, materials science, electrical engineering, or a related discipline, coupled with at least four years’ experience in designing backlighting systems for displays; the level of ordinary skill in the art is approximate and additional education could make up for a lack of experience or vice-versa. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have [had] (a) a Bachelor’s of Science degree in a technical field and at least four years of experience in the field of design and/or manufacture of display systems; (b) a Master’s of Science degree in a technical field and at least two years of experience in the field of design and/or manufacture of display systems; or (c) a PhD in a technical field relating to the design and/or manufacture of display systems. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. 4 Neither party presents objective evidence of nonobviousness at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“We preliminarily find that column 6, lines 47 through 51 of the ’075 patent provides a meaning of the term “on.” That disclosure in the ’075 patent states that “[i]t will be understood that when an element such as a layer, region or substrate is referred to as being ‘on’ or extending ‘onto’ another element, it can be directly on or extend directly onto the other element or intervening elements may also be present.” Ex. 1001, 6:47–51 (emphasis added). Our preliminary finding is consistent with both parties’ constructions proposed in the parallel district court case. Prelim. Resp. 4; Ex. 2003, 4. We agree with Patent Owner that the disagreement between the parties in the parallel district court case appears to be of form, rather than substance. Prelim. Resp. 5. We decline to resolve that dispute here. We also preliminarily find that Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding prohibiting airgaps is not consistent with the meaning of the term “on” based on the intrinsic record as understood based on the arguments made at this early juncture. Because intervening elements, such as a diffuser sheet, may be present, the intrinsic record does not support a narrow meaning of the term “on.” As will be discussed further below, the ’075 patent describes in “contrast” to the term “on,” the term “directly on” means “there are no intervening elements present.” Ex. 1001, 6:51–53. We, therefore, preliminarily find that construing “on” such that airgaps may be present is consistent with the claim language and patent disclosure. Ex. 1001, 6:47–51, 21:51–22:3.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We also preliminary find that Mok does not teach away from Petitioner’s proposed combination. We agree with Patent Owner to the extent that Mok discloses that “[g]enerally speaking, larger spaced-distances 48 will improve the uniformity of the light produced by the panel, but at the expense of panel thickness and some loss of efficiency.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 23. Mok’s description, however, continues as follows “[b]y way of example, in one embodiment, the diffuser 16 is separated from the base panel 12 by a distance 48 of about 50 millimeters (mm) or less.” Id. Our reviewing court has explained that “[t]he fact that [a] motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.” See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We preliminarily find that the relative advantages (e.g., reduced panel thickness) and disadvantages (e.g., reduced light uniformity) of modifying Mok’s lighting panel to include Holman’s stacking arrangement amount to a tradeoff is a decision within the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Indeed, Mok acknowledges this tradeoff. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 23 (“Generally speaking, larger spaced-distances 48 will improve the uniformity of the light produced by the panel, but at the expense of panel thickness and some loss of efficiency.”). For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that each of Mok alone and the combination of Mok and Holman teaches element 1D for purposes of institution. We also preliminarily find Petitioner’s reasons for combining the asserted art are sufficiently persuasive for institution. Petitioner’s arguments that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success (see § III.E.1) also are sufficient for purposes of institution. We preliminarily find that Petitioner’s showing is not undermined by Patent Owner’s arguments at this early stage.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,294,075 - Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 25, 2024 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR of claims 1–24 on all asserted grounds; the Board found the §103 challenges more likely than not to render claim 1 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Skill Each party puts forth a characterization of the ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of the claims of the ’795 patent. (See Pet. 13 (citing Crowley Decl., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 90–91); see Prelim. Resp. 3–4.) The parties’ proposed characterizations of the ordinarily skilled artisan are sufficiently similar that adoption of either would lead to the same result, institution. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision only, we adopt Patent Owner’s characterization of the ordinarily skilled artisan as having a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as, chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least two years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations, and access to one or more team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals, or, in the alternative, at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations, and access to one or more team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Prelim. Resp. 3–4.) We also note that the level of skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan is revealed by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error “the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163, 225 USPQ 34, 38 (Fed.Cir.1985)).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner puts forth constructions of certain terms used in the claims of the ’795 patent. (See Pet. 14–19.) Patent Owner does not dispute any of these constructions specifically, but at this point, argues that we need not construe any terms “to resolve the present controversy.” (Prelim. Resp. 2.) We agree that an express construction is not required at this point in the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test 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). Thus, at this point in the proceeding, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because it does not address the teachings in the prior art that Petitioner asserts would render the formulations claimed in the ’795 patent obvious.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,617,795 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1, 11, and 16 under the Downs/EDACS and Kim grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“A. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and deny the Petition in view of the related lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)). However, Petitioner has since filed a Sotera stipulation, so named based on Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A). See Ex. 1035. Thus, pursuant to the Interim Procedure, we will not discretionarily deny the Petition based on the related lawsuit. See Interim Procedure at 3 (“Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.”).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In assessing whether to exercise the Board’s authority to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board considers a two-part analysis. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, No. IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). First, in Part One, the Board considers whether “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. Id. at 8. If so, in Part Two, the Board then considers whether the petition demonstrates that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. In applying the two-part framework, the Board considers several nonexclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, No. IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“status of a channel,” “having or collecting information on ongoing communications,” and “providing call access to entities” does not constitute “monitoring media streams,” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 29). Patent Owner does not, however, propose a construction for “monitoring media streams,” let alone one that might elucidate the distinction Patent Owner is advancing. Nor is such a distinction apparent based on the claim language. For example, the plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to encompass, among other things, Down’s disclosure that “[t]he dispatcher console is informed of the individual transmitters and channels that are being used and of the status of other transmitters and receivers in the system.” Ex. 1004, 2:20–22; see also id. at 3:17–26 (explaining that the display provides caller, volume, and, if applicable, emergency status of each individual communication). The plain and ordinary meaning of “monitoring media streams” appears to also encompass EDACS’s disclosure that its “system receives [an emergency] request and assigns the emergency call to a free channel.” Ex. 1005, 25.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,831,664 - PTAB · Mar 21, 2024 · IPR2023-01295 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 on both § 103 grounds: Shaffer with Saylor, and Gogic with Opitz.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the prosecution history. After the Examiner issued a final rejection of then-pending claim 1 (Ex. 1003, 125–138), Applicant amended claim 1 by adding the following limitations:” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“informing the Board of the stipulation Petitioner made to Patent Owner on December 27, 2023. Paper 8, 5 (citing Ex. 1034). The Stipulation reads: Motorola Solutions, Inc. stipulates that, if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes an IPR proceeding for U.S. Patent No. 8,994,830 on the grounds presented in the petition in IPR2023- 01295, Motorola Solutions, Inc. will not pursue an invalidity defense in the district court action (STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. Id. Petitioner has filed a stipulation that it “will not pursue an invalidity defense in the district court action (STA Group LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)) that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR.” Ex. 1034. Petitioner contends that its “Sotera stipulation moots Patent Owner’s (‘PO’) Fintiv arguments.” Prelim. Repl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034; Ex. 1032, 3). Patent Owner does not respond, in the Preliminary Sur-reply, to Petitioner’s Reply argument regarding discretionary denial or argue that we nevertheless should deny the Petition in light of Petitioner’s stipulation. See, generally, Prelim. Sur-Reply. Upon consideration of these factors and the parties’ arguments, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition in light of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation. See Guidance Memo 7.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Conclusion as to Independent Claim 1 We have considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties with respect to independent claim 1. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of institution that the combined teachings of Shaffer and Saylor meet all the limitations of independent claim 1 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had reason to combine their teachings in the manner described, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 53
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person having “at least (a) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (b) approximately 2 years industry experience in networking or communication systems, including interoperating different types of networks that include video feeds.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 45–47). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears to be consistent with the subject matter of the ’830 patent. This is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Polish. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. D. Claim Construction” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,994,830
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.