- PTAB · Jun 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00052 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all asserted grounds for claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show them unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . 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 set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the remaining challenged claims— claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23 of the ’251 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to these claims on all grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Typically, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent,” but “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” CTPG 59. For example, more than one petition may be necessary “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. Given the priority date dispute addressed only in the -00051 Petition, and in light of Patent Owner’s decision not to challenge Petitioner’s filing of parallel petitions, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny either petition. See CTPG 61 (“The Board will consider the parties’ submissions in determining whether to exercise its discretion to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party asserts that any claim terms of the ’251 patent require construction. Pet. 6–7; Prelim. Resp. 13. And, upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms require construction for purposes of this Decision. See 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“In view of the foregoing, and after reviewing the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Birrell and Schultz teach or suggest “at least one LED circuit having a plurality of LEDs . . . wherein the at least one LED circuit is mounted on a reflective substrate,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’251 patent. Petitioner also provides a sufficient rationale, supported by record evidence, explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Birrell and Schultz. b) Reasonable Expectation of Success Patent Owner contends the Petition does not support institution because incorporating Schultz’s flexible, multilayer optical film in Birrell would present substantial challenges “for reconciling the build characteristics of the multi-layer rigid frame construction of Birrell with the flexible construction of Schultz.” Prelim. Resp. 22. And, given the differences in construction between the two lighting devices, Patent Owner contends the combination of Schultz’s reflective surface materials with Birrell’s circuit board 58 is not a “predictable use of known lighting design techniques and components according to their established functions,” as asserted by Petitioner. Id. at 21–22. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner does not contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Schultz’s specific reflective material in Birrell. Rather, Petitioner argues that the use of reflective substrates to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art and, given Schultz’s disclosure of the benefits of such a reflective coating, one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to apply a reflective coating in Birrell. Pet. 13–16. In addition, Dr. Baker, citing to multiple disclosures in the prior art, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success in implementing a reflective substrate in Birrell. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–85. Patent Owner’s bare attorney argument is not sufficient to call this testimony into question at this stage of the proceeding. c) Conclusion with Respect to Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,492,251 - PTAB · Jun 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00051 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1 and 6 over all asserted grounds because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Birrell and Schultz and over Piepgras.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“At bottom,” the two-part framework utilized for 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) “reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. The art in the -01369 IPR has not yet been fully considered. There has been no definitive determination in that proceeding as to the scope of the prior art nor any definitive determination as to whether the submitted evidence is sufficient to show that any claims of the ’251 patent would have been obvious. As such, there is no reference point to determine whether the Office erred; there has simply been no definitive determination to analyze or reconsider. Accordingly, the framework described in Advanced Bionics is not yet applicable and does not support discretionary denial.6 Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) on these facts. slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“6 When different petitioners challenge the same patent, discretionary denial may be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), upon evaluation of the non-exhaustive factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, at 15–16 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential). See Valve Corp. v. Elecs. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019- 00062, Paper 11, at 2, 9 (April 2, 2019) (applying the General Plastic factors to a second petition filed by a different party). Application of the General Plastic factors, however, requires analysis of, among other things, any relationship between the different petitioners and the timing of the second petition with respect to Patent Owner’s preliminary response and the Board’s institution decision in the first proceeding. Id. at 9, 12. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence demonstrating that these factors counsel in favor of discretionary denial in this case, and Petitioner presents evidence that they do not. Pet. 81–84 (Petitioner asserting that it has no “significant relationship” with the petitioner in the -01369 IPR and that no preliminary response had been filed in the -01369 IPR when the Petition was filed). Accordingly, we do not consider discretionary denial under § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party asserts that any claim terms of the ’251 patent require construction. Pet. 21–22; Prelim. Resp. 13. And, upon review of the 6 When different petitioners challenge the same patent, discretionary denial may be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), upon evaluation of the non-exhaustive factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, at 15–16 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential). See Valve Corp. v. Elecs. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019- 00062, Paper 11, at 2, 9 (April 2, 2019) (applying the General Plastic factors to a second petition filed by a different party). Application of the General Plastic factors, however, requires analysis of, among other things, any relationship between the different petitioners and the timing of the second petition with respect to Patent Owner’s preliminary response and the Board’s institution decision in the first proceeding. Id. at 9, 12. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence demonstrating that these factors counsel in favor of discretionary denial in this case, and Petitioner presents evidence that they do not. Pet. 81–84 (Petitioner asserting that it has no “significant relationship” with the petitioner in the -01369 IPR and that no preliminary response had been filed in the -01369 IPR when the Petition was filed). Accordingly, we do not consider discretionary denial under § 314(a). parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms require construction for purposes of this Decision. See 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply a reflective coating, such as that disclosed in Shultz, to Birrell’s circuit board, and would have sought to do so because such coatings were well known in the art and it was understood that a reflective coating would improve the illumination provided by an LED lighting system. Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1002 ¶ 105. Petitioner’s arguments and rationale for the proposed combination are clear and supported by evidence of record. Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 47–49; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18, 6:48–7:34; Ex. 1022, Abstract, ¶¶ 18, 34, 81). Accordingly, Petitioner sufficiently explains for purposes of institution why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the disclosures of Birrell and Schultz to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,492,251 - PTAB · May 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00063 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–34 and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on obviousness over Ellsberry and Jeddeloh.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“another patent asserted in the Related Case was filed within a week of the Preliminary Response. Id. We decline to attempt to predict how the District Court would proceed should a stay be requested by either of the parties. Accordingly, we find that this factor neither favors nor weighs against discretionary denial of inter partes review. C. Factor 2 — Proximity of Court’s Trial Date Patent Owner admits that “[t]he district of Delaware has not yet set a trial date.” Id. Accordingly, this factor weighs against exercising our discretion to deny inter partes review.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Given the facts above, because Averbuj was not presented in combination with the other references asserted here and is only used in two of the four grounds, the combination of references asserted in the Petition do not qualify as art that was “previously presented” to the Office. Thus, we find that the combination of references asserted in the Petition, were not previously presented to the Office. Additionally, Patent Owner does not assert or explain sufficiently that Ellsberry, Jeddeloh, and/or Lee are cumulative of any reference cited during prosecution of the ’523 patent. Prelim. Resp. 41–43. On this record, we are not persuaded that Ellsberry, Jeddeloh, and Lee are cumulative of any reference cited during prosecution of the ’523 patent. Accordingly, the first condition of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied, and we need not consider whether Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Conclusion After evaluating the Becton, Dickinson factors within the Advanced” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization or offer its own. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill, which we determine is consistent with the ’523 patent written description and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner offers constructions of several terms which are not disputed by Patent Owner. Pet. 13–15. Nevertheless, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of the terms of the claims at this juncture. 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 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,217,523 - Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,807,826 - TCT Mobile (US) Inc / TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd et al. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 26, 2022 · IPR2021-01573 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “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). We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(1) Adachi’s embodiments disclosing blue phosphorescent OLEDs as described in columns 13–16, and (2) the red fluorescent OLED mentioned in Adachi’s background discussion. This is not appropriate in an anticipation analysis. See Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369–71 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that anticipation requires a clear disclosure of the claimed invention with elements arranged as in the claim and without any need for combining distinct disclosures).” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,372,199 - Vudu, LLC v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01688 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are unpatentable over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. does it present its own definition. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” “SegmentBase,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its briefing. We need not construe any claim term to resolve any issues before us, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely because paragraph 253 uses the term “[h]ereinafter” before it discloses “two simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited 8 Ex. 2005 is Application No. 16/168,933 (“the ’933 application”). in limitations [38.6], [40.6], and [46.6]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicates a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. MTA 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 38, 40, and 46 do not find sufficient written description support in the ’644 application nor in the ’933 application, whether considered individually or collectively, and thus, these claims contain new matter.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“rationale for combining DIS 23009-1 with M20060, Petitioner persuasively contends that: A POSA would have been motivated to add the additional “metadata” described in M20060 to the MPDs described in the DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 references in order to enable the client to choose the most suitable version of media content among alternative versions of media content. For example, M20060 describes that the additional metadata (e.g., the extended accessibility element and the usedWith, equivalentTo, bitDepth, minBitDepth, and maxBitDepth attributes) helps “both users and clients to select appropriate representations” by, for example, “1) supporting accessibility, 2) describing relationships of representations, and 3) describing media’s bit depth.” Moreover, a POSA would have had an expectation of success in modifying the MPDs in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 to include the additional metadata described below because it simply would have been a matter of adding additional metadata to the MPD XML schemas described in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1. Id. (citing Ex. 1094 ¶ 33; Ex. 1097 § 1, 1). Dr. Bestavros persuasively explains that “M20060 expressly references the DIS 23001-6 reference and proposes specific modifications to the MPEG DASH metadata included in the MPD XML schema.” Ex. 1094 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1097 § 1, 1 (introduction of M20060); Ex. 1097, 7 (references cited by M20060)).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 10,270,830 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,270,830 - Vudu, Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01689 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 11, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend proposing claims 31–35 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor does it present its own definition in any of its briefing. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the Specification of the ’414 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in any of its briefing. 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“The newly-cited portion in paragraph 232 does not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited in limitations [31.11], [32.12], and [35.7]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicate a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 31, 32, and 35 do not have sufficient written description support in the ’644 application and the ’092 application, either individually or collectively, and as such, contain new matter.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“are not entitled to a priority date earlier than March 16, 2012 (the filing date of PCT ’922), because the disclosure of KR10-2011-0023271 does not support at least the limitations of: “the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and the “SegmentTemplate” recited in independent claims 25. Patent Owner has not asserted, after institution, that the challenged claims are entitled to an earlier date. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indicating that patent owner bears a burden of production in arguing that the asserted references are not prior art based on entitlement to an earlier priority date). As such and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that DIS 23001-6, DIS 23009-1, and 3GPP TS 26.247 qualify as prior art to the challenged claims, because Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the references were publicly accessible prior to the applicable priority date of March 16, 2012.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,313,414 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,313,414 - Panduit Corp. v. Corning Optical Communications LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01562 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR for claims 1–30 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art and arguments had been considered and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“interest to this proceeding. Pet. 75; Paper 9, 2. Patent Owner argues the “Petition’s identification of the real parties-in-interest is fatally defective” because “the RPI identified in the Petition is different from the real parties in interest identified in the Power of Attorney.” Prelim. Resp. 41–42 (citing Pet. 75). In an Updated Mandatory Notice, Petitioner identifies Panduit Corp., The Siemon Company, FS.Com, Inc., and Reichle & De-Massari Holding AG as the real parties in interest. Paper 17, 2. To the extent that the identification of the real parties in interest in the Petition may have been defective because it differed from Petitioner’s Powers of Attorney (see Papers 1–4), that defect has been cured in Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory Notice.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“part of the Advanced Bionics framework, that the Petition “presents to the Office the same or substantially the same art previously presented to the Office.” See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 7.” slip op. at 16
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,444,456 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01521 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9–11, 19–21, and 29–30 were obvious over Paxton and Sutton.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 16–56. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“or why its proposed Paxton-Sutton combination would generate rules and provision the rules ‘responsive to correlating,’ as required by the Challenged Claims.” Prelim. Resp. 43. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the correlating, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the host located in the first network.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2–3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Claim Construction The parties do not dispute any claim constructions (see Pet. 14–15; Prelim. Resp. 41), we find no terms that need to be construed to resolve any issues, and, accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,560,176 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00112 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 lacks written description support; all petition grounds were included.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“content for output.” Id. at 89. We determine, however, that Petitioner’s argument under Step 2A Prong One that claim 1 is directed to the “obtaining content for output” is not substantially different from the Examiner’s determination that claims 1‒20 recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Compare Pet. 37–88 (citing e.g. Electric Power), with Ex. 2001, 193–194 (also citing Electric Power). In both cases, the argument is the same or substantially the same, i.e., that similarly identified subject matter of the claim is obtaining (collecting) data and displaying (outputting) it. Nevertheless, as to Step 2A Prong Two, we determine that the claims at issue in the ’096 prosecution differ in material ways from the ’903 patent claims at issue in this PGR. Specifically, the ’096 patent claims recite a touchscreen interface not recited in the ’903 patent claims. Additionally, the ’903 claims focus on the “output device” as performing the patented steps but in the ’096 prosecution history the “‘information apparatus performs the patented steps and “is integral to the claims” (as the Applicant argued). See Ex. 2008 [comparison of ’096 prosecution claims and ’903 claims]; Ex. 2001, 150; see also Pet. 89 (“the claims at issue in the ’067 application were different than the claims of the ’903 patent addressed here.”). rejection and arguments in the ’096 prosecution history turns on whether the claims in this PGR recite different elements that must be determined to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., Prong Two of Step 2A). Petitioner argues that an essential element different than the ’096 claims, i.e. the output device, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not amount to an improvement to computer functionality. Pet. 37–72. We find this a close case. Nevertheless, due to the differences in the claims, we determine that the Examiner’s withdrawal of the § 101 rejection in light of the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific technical solution is not substantially the same argument that Petitioner’s presents in the Petition as to Prong Two of Step 2A.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“C. Lack of Written Description Support Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description for the same reasons it contends the ’903 patent is PGR eligible. Pet. 13–36. The Specification of the ’903 patent has substantially the same disclosures as the Specification of the ’413 application relied on by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 20) to which the ’903 patent claims priority. Having determined that the disclosures in the ’903 patent Specification and the ’413 application is insufficient to provide written description support for the at least claim 1, we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable for the same reasons. Thus, we exercise our discretion and institute post grant review of claims 1–20 challenged under this ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).” slip op. at 33
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted
“in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that an output system/device could be (or include) an information apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 24. We determine that Patent Owner’s argument has a logical flaw––i.e., the fact that a particular device could be used alternately as an information apparatus or an output device does not necessarily mean that it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combined information apparatus/output device and have the new combined device perform all the additional functions required by the claims. “The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.” Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rivera”). “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification . . . . It extends only to that which is 1997). Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’413 application teaching that an “output device” can perform the functions of the “information apparatus” including its interactions with the “output device.” For example, claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving, by the output system . . . output data from at least one server of the one or more servers over the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 37:28–32. At this stage, we find sufficiently persuasive Petitioner’s argument, which we discuss above, that the only written description support for an “output device” that performs the claimed functions by accessing the Internet provided by Patent Owner is not an “output device” but an “information apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. at 27–29.” slip op. at 29
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Mayo · Bilski · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,029,903
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.