- Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01293 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 7 are unpatentable under § 103: claims 1 and 2 over Patrick, claim 2 over Patrick and Barrett, claims 3–5 over Patrick and Gringeri, and claim 7 over Patrick and Mahdavi.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts: [a] person of ordinary skill in the field of art (“POSITA”) of the ’098 patent would have been a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video transmission systems, or a person with a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in video transmission systems. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–56). Petitioner further contends that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–56). Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2004 would have known and had the skills necessary to: (1) “Design or implement video transmission systems and applications in compliance with standards such as TCP/IP, UDP, RTP, ATM, DVB, and ATSC;” (2) “Understand video coding and processing in compliance with standards such as MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and H.26x;” (3) “Implement known techniques for determining available bandwidths between transmitting and receiving systems of media content; and” (4) “Understand common techniques for organizing and” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construction standard as applied in federal courts in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is generally referred to as the Phillips standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under the Phillips standard, “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (1996)). Petitioner proposes claim constructions for “transmission rate” and “steady-state transmission rate.” See Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not agree with Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions. See PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 20). Patent Owner, however, does not offer alternative proposed claim constructions, but instead asserts these terms should be construed in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings. See id. As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not expressly construe “transmission rate” and “steady-state transmission rate.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that the following Reply argument constitutes an impermissible new argument: “[s]ince [Patent Owner] is unable to dispute paragraph 38 teaches limitations [1b] and [1d] . . . .” Pet. Reply 9; see PO Sur-reply 12–13. Contrary to Patent Owner’s suggestion, we do not understand Petitioner to argue for the first time on Reply that Patrick’s paragraph 38 by itself teaches limitations [1b] and [1d]. Rather, we understand the Reply argument to address the dispute raised by Patent Owner regarding the disclosure of Patrick’s paragraph 38 as applied to limitations [1b] and [1d] in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 9; PO Resp. 38–40, 38 n.7, 52–53 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 50–51, 63–64, 70); Pet. 30–31, 37. Likewise, we do not agree that the portion of the Reply addressing the second sentence of Patrick’s paragraph 38 is a new argument that attempts to buttress the lack of discussion of paragraph 38 in the Petition. See PO Sur-reply 16; Pet. Reply 11. Instead, we find that these Reply arguments constitute a permissible response to Patent Owner’s arguments addressing how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure of Patrick’s paragraph 38. See PO Resp. 38 n.7 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 50), 52–53 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 63–64, 70; PO Resp. 38 n.7); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”)8 73–74.” slip op. at 28
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“paragraph 38 uses terms consistent with the terms used in the first sentence of paragraph 38 and terms used in paragraphs 31 and 36 to address act 206 of Figure 3. See id. ¶¶ 31, 36, 38. Moreover, the first sentence of paragraph 38 is consistent with Patrick’s paragraph 37 disclosure that network congestion or other restrictions between the server and client (i.e., a reduction of bandwidth between the server and client) may limit the rate of accelerated streaming. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 37 (quoted in Pet. 30–31). We give weight to Dr. Brody’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art “reading Patrick’s disclosure would have understood that [Patrick’s] later disclosure [in paragraphs 33 through 39] provides additional details and teachings relevant to the invention as a whole,” (Pet. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 8)) because it is supported by the aforementioned interrelated teachings of at least Patrick’s paragraphs 31 and 36 through 38. We give minimal weight to Dr. Hayes’s cited supporting testimony regarding the “structure” of Patrick because it is not supported by a sufficient factual basis, and like Patent Owner’s arguments, is inconsistent with Patrick’s disclosure. Accordingly, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we find: (1) Patrick’s paragraph 38 provides additional detail regarding the disclosures of paragraphs 31 through 36 with respect to act 206 of Figure 3; (2) the disclosures of paragraphs 37 through 39 are not limited to describing the period of accelerated streaming of act 208 of Figure 3; and (3) the corresponding disclosure related to act 206 of Figure 3 is not limited to the description of Patrick’s paragraphs 31 through 36.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 9,402,098 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,402,098 - Netflix, Inc. v. Ca, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 8, 2023 · IPR2021-01319 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–17 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–9, and 11–16 as obvious over Medin and Seltzer; claim 17 as obvious over Medin and Markatos.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner states that a POSITA would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, with one or two years of experience in this or a related field.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 20). Patent Owner notes that Petitioner presents a “similar” description of a POSITA, but Patent Owner states that it “does not necessarily agree with all of the ‘knowledge’ required by Petitioner’s definition.” PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner states, though, that “any differences in the parties’ view of a POSITA are not material” to Patent Owner’s arguments. PO Resp. 21. Based on the complete record, we determine an appropriate definition of the level of ordinary skill is a person with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline with two years of experience with computer networks and data storage, which is consistent with the parties’ contentions.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“1. “receiving a set of network objects in response to a first request to a server from a client” Petitioner contends the claim language “receiving a set of network objects in response to a first request to a server from a client” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill to be a step that must be performed at the cache engine. Pet. 25. Further, Petitioner states that the limitation should be construed to mean “receiving a set of network objects at the cache engine in response to a first request to a server from a client.” Pet. 25–26. According to Petitioner, claims 20, 28, 39, and 47 require a cache engine that performs an equivalent receiving step, and Petitioner additionally cites certain dependent claims and portions of the Specification as support for its argument. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:26–35, 3:42–51, 5:61–67, claims 2–6, 10–14). Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed construction and contends this limitation does not require any construction. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 21). Patent Owner also states that the construction of this limitation is immaterial to the patentability of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 21. We determine it is unnecessary to expressly interpret this limitation to resolve the issues presented in this 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
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Those positions, though, are inconsistent with the plain language of the claim. The claimed “cache memory” cannot refer only to a cache with volatile memory because the claim states that the “cache memory includ[es] mass storage.” Further, Patent Owner seeks to rewrite this claim term, with Patent Owner arguing “the plain and ordinary meaning of this limitation requires the cache to have both (1) memory and (2) mass storage.” Sur- Reply 3 (emphasis added). Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite a “cache” or a “memory” separate from “a cache memory in a cache engine, . . . said cache memory including mass storage.” Ex. 1001, 17:8–11, 17:41– 44, 18:13–16. Moreover, the Specification’s use of the qualifier “such as” in “memory (such as RAM)” (Ex. 1001, code (57), 2:9) evidences that RAM is merely a non-limiting example of memory; nothing in the Specification limits “memory”—much less “cache memory”—to RAM or volatile memory. Finally, although not directly applicable to our understanding of “cache memory,” the file history refers to “memory” broadly. In the file history, the applicant stated “the term ‘memory’ in the claims is meant to broadly encompass both fixed memories such as DRAMs, SRAMs, hard disks, caches, etc., as well as removable memories such as floppy disks, CD- ROMs, data tapes, etc.” Ex. 1002, 482. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, that statement from the prosecution history evidences that the applicant understood “memory” to be a broad term and that the applicant could have limited its claims to particular types of memory, but chose not to. In total, the evidence of record, including Patent Owner’s arguments premised on intrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence, and witness testimony,5 does not support Patent Owner’s arguments that “a cache memory in a cache engine, . . . said cache memory including mass storage” requires volatile memory. In our analysis below, we apply the plain language of the claims, noting that we understand the plain language to require mass storage but to permissively allow other types of memory, including volatile memory such as RAM.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“After fully considering the cited supporting evidence and according it appropriate weight, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Medin and Seltzer “so as to substantially minimizes a time required for retrieving said network objects from said mass storage.” In particular, as Petitioner argues, Medin and Seltzer “share the goal of improving the speed and efficiency” of systems for storing information. Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:8–13, 2:9–15, 2:18–25, code (57); Ex. 1005, 307; Ex. 1003 ¶ 114). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments that the references’ goals are too generic and applicable to any references (PO Resp. 44–45; Sur-Reply 22), the references’ teachings are specifically complimentary: Medin teaches storing copies of frequently accessed multimedia content on UNIX-based computers to cache information and read and write it to mass storage (Ex. 1003, 5:60–64, 6:1–4, 6:36–56, 7:46–51, 7:61–8:2, 8:63–9:32), and Seltzer teaches techniques to improve read and write operations on UNIX-based computers (Ex. 1005, 307). The fact that Markatos advocates a different solution that purportedly outperforms “traditional” file system caching does not undermine Petitioner’s proposed combination for a number of reasons. Petitioner’s proposed combination includes Medin’s teachings of a file system to cache network objects and Seltzer’s teachings of ways of improving the read and write operations of a file system. Even if Markatos’s system purportedly outperforms other systems, that does not change the fact that Seltzer suggests techniques to improve Medin’s teachings that a POSITA would have had reason to implement to substantially minimize the time for retrieving network objects from mass storage with a reasonable expectation of success. In other words, we disagree with Patent Owner’s implication that Markatos’s disclosure of a purported improvement to traditional file system caching would lead a POSITA to dismiss Seltzer’s teachings of optimization techniques applicable to file system caching.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,103,794 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,103,794 - PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–11 on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent on all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“1 We apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the claims at issue have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”). See Ex. 1001, code (22). 2 Petitioner does not list claim 1 in its table on page 3, but Petitioner provides argument as to claim 1 in its discussion of the ground. See Pet. 56– 57. 3 Petitioner does not list claims 1and 4 in its table on page 3, but Petitioner provides argument as to claims 1 and 4 in its discussion of the ground. See Pet. 73. 4 Petitioner argues that the Fintiv factors weigh against discretionary denial. Pet. 77–78; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5‒6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). Because Patent Owner does not argue for discretionary denial, we see no need to consider the issue further.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The specification of the ’240 patent describes its technical field as relating to “‘secure documents’ …having RFID (radio frequency identification) chips …operating in contactless mode (ISO 14443) including dual interface (‘DI’, or ‘DIF’) cards which can also operate in contact mode (ISO 7816-2), and more particularly to improving coupling between components within the smart card …and consequent improvements in interacting with external RFID readers.” Ex. 1001, 1:24–34. The specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See e.g., id. at 6:55–58. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 20035, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, on the record currently before us, we are not persuaded that the level of 5 Our citations are to the native page numbers in the document and not Patent Owner’s numbering. devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “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.” See Pet. 8.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“B. Dr. van der Weide’s Level of Experience Patent Owner argues that we should not give substantial weight to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, because he “lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a [person having ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 27–28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 71–72. According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. at 27. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Based on the current record, Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,165,240 - PTAB · Oct 14, 2022 · IPR2022-00741 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 on all six asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the MIT2002, MIT2003, and MIT2004 combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,355,975 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’975 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Rex Computing, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). 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). An inter partes review may not be instituted on fewer than all claims challenged in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the time the ’975 patent was filed. Pet. 6. Relying upon the Conte Declaration, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject matter, plus at least two years of professional experience in the field of microprocessor design or a similar field. . . . and more experience would compensate for less formal education, 2 Patent Owner does not identify any secondary considerations to be considered. Accordingly, we do not consider this aspect of the obviousness analysis at this preliminary stage of the proceeding. and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–30). At this juncture, Patent Owner has not provided an assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is supported by the Conte Declaration and is consistent with the ’975 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“of any claim term is necessary at the institution stage. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner asserts that the different litigation constructions need not be resolved because institution should be denied for other reasons, relying on the plain language of the claims. However, because Patent Owner addresses the interpretation of “data packet” in contesting Petitioner’s application of Olofsson, further briefing on the construction of that term is recommended. Id. at 8. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 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)). We agree that no constructions are required at this preliminary stage for the above-disputed terms; therefore, we do not directly address the parties’ proposed constructions, except as discussed, infra, with respect to the asserted contentions of obviousness.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“threshold showing that these references are prior art patents or printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Pet. 3–4; Ex. 1005, codes (22), (43); Ex. 1006, codes (22), (45); Ex. 1007, codes (22), (63). With respect to MIT2002, MIT2003, and MIT2004, Petitioner relies upon a declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis to establish the provenance of these references. Pet. 10. Dr. Hall-Ellis states that MIT2002 was “available on March 1, 2002, in the ACM Digital Library and on August 7, 2002, in the IEEE Xplore database.” Ex. 1016 ¶ 51. Dr. Hall-Ellis further states that the IEEE Micro article publication became publicly available on, or shortly after, April 17, 2002. Id. ¶ 53.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,355,975 - NXP B.V. / NXP USA, Inc. et al. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00967 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field as well as at least four years of experience in high-frequency circuit engineering and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). For purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (Inst. Dec. 17–18), and neither party addresses the level of ordinary skill in the post-institution briefs (see generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-reply). In this Decision, we again adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner. This level of skill is consistent with the Specification of the ’269 patent and the asserted prior art, and it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Choi. Accord Inst. Dec. 17–18.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“on an integrated circuit package substrate for connecting with a printed circuit board.” PO Resp. 9–12; Sur-reply 1–2. Petitioner disagrees. Reply 6. But, because we find that Petitioner has shown that Chin suggests implementing its invention in an IC9 package substrate as Patent Owner’s proposed construction would require (infra § III.D.2.), we need not resolve this dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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))). However, if we needed to substantively address this dispute, we would reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Patent Owner advocates limiting the scope of this claim term to include only the contact pads in a particular location (i.e., the PCB-side of the IC package substrate),10 but the intrinsic record does not support importing such a limitation into the claim. Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no passage in the intrinsic record that redefines the term “contact pads” or disavows part of its scope. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that a term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning unless a patentee acted as his own lexicographer or disavowed claim scope). Rather, Patent Owner’s argument is that the term should be limited because the Specification only discusses “contact pads” in that location and does not apply its invention to other pads” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s ultimate assertion that the plain language of the claim is informative of its proper meaning, such that “vias connecting the contact pads with one of the electrically conductive layers” means that vias are used to connect the recited contact pads with an electrically conductive layer. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. After considering the parties’ arguments, we determine that no other claim terms require an express construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“we agree with Petitioner that Chin explains that its “concepts apply equally to an integrated circuit package substrate.” Pet. 22. In particular, we find that Chin discloses an IC package substrate. See Ex. 1004, 1:61–62 (referring to “a substrate used inside a BGA package”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30 (Dr. Choi explaining that a BGA is a type of IC package). We credit Dr. Choi’s testimony on this point because it is logical and supported by cited evidence. See, e.g., Ex. 1014, 45;12 Ex. 1016, 5–7. We are also persuaded that Chin expressly suggests implementing its invention in an IC package substrate. Chin begins its description by stating that “[t]he present invention relates generally to the design and fabrication of printed circuits and multi-layered substrates.” Ex. 1004, 1:7–8 (emphasis added). Chin also states that its invention “is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation,” in its figures. Ex. 1004, 3:26–27. Similarly, Chin’s final paragraph states that alternative implementations “will be apparent to those skilled in the art,” and it states that “semiconductor implementations . . . are contemplated as within the scope of the present invention” as they use “similar layered printed circuit routing techniques.” Ex. 1004, 5:54–6:10. Moreover, as background for its invention, Chin addresses problems encountered as signal speed increases and explains that “excess parasitics that limit the bandwidth” are caused by an impedance mismatch between landing pads and their associated interconnect conductors. Ex. 1004, 1:35–56. Chin then states: One example is the use of a ball-grid-array (BGA) package in a multi-gigahertz printed circuit board. The landing pads of current state of the art BGAs are typically 25–30 mils in 12 Unless otherwise noted, our citations refer to page numbers added to an exhibit by Petitioner or Patent Owner rather than the document’s native page numbers. diameter, which is significantly larger than the typically 5 mil microstrips used in interconnecting conductors. Another example is a substrate used inside a BGA package. Typical solder ball landing pad sizes for current technology BGA substrates are on the order of 20–25 mil, significantly larger than the typically 3 mil traces used in microstrip interconnects. Ex. 1004, 1:56–65 (emphasis added). Accordingly, given the context provided by Chin (see Ex. 1004, 1:7–8, 5:54–6:10), we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this passage (see Ex. 1004, 1:61–65) to suggest applying Chin’s disclosure to an IC package substrate. Accord Inst. Dec. 23–24.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,288,269 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,288,269 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00650 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–8, 11–14, and 16 based on the asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’304 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Takeda-322 does not explain how to space adjacent turns of its spiral booster and exciting coils. Ex. 1003 ¶ 75. As explained above, however, Ayala-362 explains how this spacing or pitch should be adjusted in order to optimize inductive coupling, resonant frequencies, and communication. Pet. 17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76–77; Ex. 1006, code (57), 25–26. It has long been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); see also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). The present record supports that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to choose a pitch for Takeda-322’s various coils as Ayala-362 suggests. The record also supports that such an implementation would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 19 (providing citations to evidence providing support); Ex. 1003 ¶ 85. As such, the present record adequately establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reached the “Takeda-322/Ayala-362 smart card” as Petitioner describes it. Pet. 21.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“The Federal Circuit has held that in an inter partes review there are two distinct burdens of proof: the burden of persuasion and the burden of production. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability, which never shifts to Patent Owner. Id. at 1379. Dynamic Drinkware, however, also establishes that Petitioner has the initial burden of production to show a reference is prior art. Id. Once Petitioner’s burden of production is satisfied, the burden of production then shifts to Patent Owner to refute Petitioner’s argument by either showing the prior art does not actually render the claims unpatentable or does not qualify as prior art. Id. at 1380. The burden of production then shifts back to Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s argument. Id.” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose any claim terms for construction and contends that “the prior art meets the claim terms under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 9. Petitioner also argues that the plain meaning of “pitch” may refer to interturn gap distance (IGD). See Pet. 35–36; see also id. at 5 (explaining IGD). Petitioner also presents an alternative argument in the event that pitch is limited to average center-to-center distance (CCD). Id. at 36–39. As we explain below, Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim under each of these constructions. Thus, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,633,304 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Micropairing Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00317 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 29–31 because Petitioner did not show that Kizuka and Watabe teach using the configuration manager to redirect data and state information after a failure.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Kizuka teaches, suggests, or renders obvious using the configuration manager to redirect the data and state information to the other identified processor after detecting the failure. Accordingly, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of Kizuka and Watabe teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the redirection limitation. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 29 would have been obvious over Kizuka and Watabe.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner. It is undisputed that, in Kizuka, continuation unit 22 redirects data and state information to another identified processor after a failure is detected. Pet. 49; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 149–150; Prelim. Resp. 28–29. Continuation unit 22, however, is not part of administration facility 12 (or 2), which Petitioner identifies as Kizuka’s configuration manager. Ex. 1004, Fig. 3A; Pet. 39. Instead, continuation unit 22 is part of work allocation facility 13, which Petitioner identifies as Kizuka’s task manager. Ex. 1004, Fig. 3B; Pet. 31. Thus, according to Petitioner’s mapping, it is Kizuka’s task manager, not its configuration manager, that redirects data and state information to another identified processor. Ex. 1004, Figs. 3A and 3B. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that administration facility 12 is used to redirect data and state information, as required by the claim, merely because continuation unit 22 may use some information obtained from administration facility 12 to redirect the information. Pet. 49– 50. The redirection limitation recites using the configuration manager to redirect such information, not merely using information from the configuration manager to redirect such information. Ex. 1001, 9:48–50.” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,178,049 - Triller, Inc. v. Tiktok Pte. Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00180 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“framework, with the first part being whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (addressing in a two part framework the factors presented in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III(C)(5), first paragraph)). As we discuss below, we are not persuaded that the first part of the framework is met. Patent Owner does not argue that Abrams previously was presented to the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 7 n.3, 25 n.7. And we are not persuaded that Abrams is substantially the same art as Sittig or Reddick simply because Abrams may have one claimed feature in common with Sittig (i.e., “a generic browser”) and a different claimed feature in common with Reddick (i.e., allowing a user to edit, but not create, profiles). Id. Petitioner is relying on Abrams to teach multiple claimed features, and Patent Owner’s § 325(d) arguments address only a subset of those features. Id.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 (2021). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’322 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent discipline, or equivalent experience, including familiarity with multitasking and multithreading, wireless communications and client/server computing, and, in addition, familiarity with digital music distribution and DRM.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 62; Pet. 35. Patent Owner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Human Factors, or an equivalent degree and at least two years of experience working in the fields of user interfaces, communications applications, networking applications, or media applications, or a person with equivalent education, work, or experience in such fields.” Prelim. Resp. 2. 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 as it is supported by expert testimony, and Patent Owner’s is not. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownOther
“Petitioner does not identify any specific claim term for construction. Pet. 5. Patent Owner submits that the claim term “software application” is defined in the Specification of the ’322 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3. More specifically, Patent Owner submits that the “Definitions” section of the Specification provides the following: “Software Application: The Client software application which is to be delivered over-the-air to, or pre-installed on, the Wireless Computing Device.” See id. (quoting Ex. 1002, 8:63–65). We note that the definition for software application incorporates, based on the capitalization of defined words, the following additional definitions10 from the “Definitions” section of the Specification:” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,992,322 - PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00050 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–30 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted references qualified as prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356,1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“But, even accepting these premises, we disagree with the conclusion Petitioner asks us to draw from them. In particular, Petitioner appears to contend that we should find that the ’974 application does not provide written description support for the claims of the ’638 patent merely because the scope of the claims includes a configuration that is not expressly described in that document. See Pet. 15–16, 22. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“An applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); Application of Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the description requirement in section 112.”).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“D. Obviousness Grounds Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1–30 of the ’638 patent would have been obvious over various combinations of Oakes-I, Oakes-II, Medina, and Roach (collectively, “the asserted references”). Pet. 5, 32–100. Petitioner argues that the asserted references are prior art because the claims of the ’638 patent are not entitled to a priority date earlier than July 28, 2017. Id. at 4–5, 11–29. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of success because Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that the asserted references qualify as prior art. Prelim. Resp. 18–59. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art,8 and as a result, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that any claim would have been unpatentable based on the asserted references.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“In the first Joint Motion to Seal, the parties request entry of a Protective Order that is substantially the same as the Board’s Default Protective Order (see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide16 at 107–122 (App. B, Protective Order Guidelines and Default Protective Order)). Paper 9, 2.17 The parties also request sealing of Exhibit 2006 and sealing of portions of the Preliminary Response relating to that exhibit. Id. at 2–3. The portions of the Preliminary Response (Paper 11) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Preliminary Response filed as Paper 12. Based on the representations in the Joint Motion to Seal (Paper 9), the parties have shown good cause for entering the Protective Order and for sealing Exhibit 2006 and the identified portions of the Preliminary Response.” slip op. at 37
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,402,638 - PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 27, 2022 · IPR2022-00049 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 20 and 22 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations rendered them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“IV. CONCLUSION The Petitioner has not persuasively established that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited references so as to render any of the challenged claims unpatentable. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition would have been obvious. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), no inter partes review as to any claim of the ’638 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Pet. 25–27 (emphasis added) (alterations in original). Although this passage is somewhat lengthy, the only reasons provided for combining the relevant teachings of Garcia and Byrne are “to avoid wasting communications resources and adding delays,” “avoid wasting resources and adding delays,” and “reducing wasteful network transmission and delays.” See id. However, the only argument as to the existence of the alleged motivating waste and delay is: “Garcia sends images by ‘a mobile telephone communications network, for example a GSM/GPRS network. . . A POSITA would have known that such networks are bandwidth and resourceconstrained, and that communications over such networks take[ ] time.” Id. at 25 (quoting Ex. 1103, 11:21–12:1). In the Petition, there is no explanation or reasoning to support concluding, based on Garcia’s statement that images are sent using a mobile telephone communications network, that a skilled artisan would recognize waste and delay even if such networks are bandwidth and resource-constrained and that communications over such networks take time. See id. And, there is no explanation or reasoning for concluding that a skilled artisan would recognize that to “check for errors before the submitting” in the manner taught by Byrne would help alleviate waste and delay in Garcia’s system. The only articulated rationale to combine in the Petition is a simple, unelaborated assertion that a skilled artisan would have known that “networks are bandwidth and resource-constrained” and “communications over such networks take time.” This assertion is too general10 and conclusory to accorded much weight and is inadequate to support the finding of rationale to combine. There is no elaboration in the Petition as to what is meant by this sentence. The Petition fails to explain what pertinent knowledge a skilled artisan would have had and how exactly this would have motivated the combination of the relevant teachings of Garcia and Byrne.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Under the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312– 19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is a “heavy presumption,” however, that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). We determine we need not explicitly construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Preliminary Response and Exhibit 2006); Paper 13 (relating to the Reply); and Paper 17 (relating to the Sur-reply). In each of these motions, the parties seek to protect as confidential certain information that relates to the issue of whether Petitioner has properly identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). As we deny the Petition on the merits and do not grant the request to institute an inter partes review, the issue of identification of the real parties in interest to this proceeding is moot. Therefore, we do not reach the arguments and evidence of the parties relating to whether Petitioner identified all the real parties in interest in the Petition, and we make no reference in this Decision to the documents and information that the parties seek to protect as confidential.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,402,638
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.