- PTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Irwin renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than the patents at issue in PGR2020-00084 and IPR2023- 01235. Challenging claims of different patents significantly distinguishes the facts here from those in General Plastic, and we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to extend General Plastic in this regard. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Weighing the Graham Factors “Once all relevant facts are found, the ultimate legal determination [of obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.” Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the record presently before us, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that Irwin would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–9 and 11–24 of the ’451 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,488,451 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Corrigent CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00169 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12–22, and 24–30 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a); claims 11 and 23 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Relying on Dr. Houh’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a working knowledge of the networking art that is pertinent to the ’431 patent, including network communications techniques and bandwidth management methodologies,” and “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications including the use of logical topologies and bandwidth management. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 3. Because Petitioner’s articulation of that level of skill is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’431 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:5–6:14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We see no significant difference between Petitioner’s proposed construction of in response to as “using” and Patent Owner’s proposed construction as “using information from.” Thus, it does not appear that the construction of in response to is genuinely in controversy. Thus, we need not construe the term for this decision. 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.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent that we need to interpret any other claim language, we address that language below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Considering the evidence of record on both sides, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that Baker teaches a “mapping” as recited in limitation 1.4. Baker’s disclosure of a “mapping” is explicit. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 69, 83. And the evidence shows that this mapping occurs “in advance of a communication,” and may, for example, take place in the head node as part of the Administer Ring routine. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–56, 76. That intermediate rings are ultimately configured to simply forward traffic “according to preconfigured rules” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 87) rather than to perform more complicated routing has no pertinent bearing on the process corresponding to the recited “mapping” step, which occurs “in advance” of the communication and any such forwarding (id. ¶ 76).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“allocating bandwidth as part of its resources and that, in light of Wright, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make this allocation for each of the links in of the physical topology (see Ex. 1006 ¶ 18 (“bandwidth allocation at each link”)) using information from both (1) the bandwidth requirements of Baker’s logical connections and (2) the mapping between Baker’s logical and physical topologies. As Petitioner persuasively argues, we find that Wright’s teaching of further details on ensuring the availability of bandwidth, in a similar context, would have been sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wright’s teachings into Baker’s method. We also determine that whether Wright, itself, teaches a mapping step is not the determining factor because Petitioner relies on Baker, not Wright, for teaching mapping limitation 1.4. Nevertheless, Wright does teach allocating bandwidth using the same information that would be available as a result of Baker’s mapping, including the logical (“restricted”) topology and the physical links associated with that topology. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that allocating bandwidth to the physical links (step 510 of Figure 5) requires knowing which physical links correspond to Wright’s restricted topology. See Pet. 36; Pet. Reply 22–23; Ex. 1007 ¶ 17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–96; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 49–51. We also disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Baker’s method to apply Wright’s teachings on bandwidth allocation, such as how Baker’s head node N0 would have been modified. See PO Resp. 31–32. Based on the level of ordinary skill and the level of detail in Baker, Wright, and the ’431 patent, and crediting Dr. Houh’s testimony, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that such modification would have been within the capability of someone of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 17–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–46, 48). And we agree with Petitioner that modifying Baker with Wright’s teachings would have been “nothing more than the combination of known elements . . . according to known methods . . . to yield predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,330,431 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,330,431 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00315 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 on all petition grounds, granted joinder to IPR2024-00137, and authorized withdrawal of Samsung’s Sotera stipulation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Carriers’ parallel district-court case. The arguments and facts are substantively the same as those presented in the T-Mobile IPR, except Petitioner here is not a defendant in the Carriers’ parallel district-court case. In the T-Mobile IPR, we found that factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution. T-Mobile 6 See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). IPR, Paper 15, 10–14. Because Petitioner in the instant proceeding is not a defendant in the Carriers’ parallel district-court case, we find that factor 5 weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution in the instant proceeding. Regarding the other factors, for the same reasons discussed in the decision to institute in the T-Mobile IPR, we find that factor 1 is neutral, factors 2 and 3 weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution. T-Mobile IPR, Paper 15, 10–14. We turn to Patent Owner’s arguments based on the Petitioner’s parallel district-court case. Our analysis of factors 1 and 4 is the same as that presented in the T-Mobile IPR because no stay has been requested in Petitioner’s parallel district-court case and Petitioner has agreed to be bound by the same stipulation submitted in the T-Mobile IPR. Joinder Mot. 1. Based on the facts presented by the parties, including the May 5, 2025 trial date, we find that factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh marginally in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution. Taking “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11, 6), we conclude that the evidence of record and our analysis of factors 1–5 relating to both district-court cases favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Regarding factor 6, for the reasons discussed in our institution decision in the T-Mobile IPR, we determine, on this preliminary record, that the merits here are compelling. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unpatentability as the ones on which we instituted review in the T-Mobile IPR. Compare Pet. 3, 21–56, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 25–60. Indeed, Petitioner contends that “the grounds of challenge in this Petition are a ‘copycat’ of the Petition filed in” the T-Mobile IPR and the “expert declaration filed in this proceeding is substantively identical to the expert declaration in” the T-Mobile IPR and is “signed by the same expert.” Id. at 1. Patent Owner states that its arguments on the merits in its Preliminary Response “are likewise ‘copycat’ of the merits arguments Patent Owner presented in its preliminary response in IPR2024-00137.” Prelim. Resp. 1 n.1. We instituted inter partes review of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 of the ’888 Patent on May 22, 2024, based on the petition filed in the T-Mobile IPR after consideration of all arguments and evidence presented by the parties including Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response. T- Mobile IPR, Paper 15. For the same reasons discussed in the Decision on Institution in the T-Mobile IPR, we find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing at least one claim of the ’888 patent is unpatentable. See id. Accordingly, we find the Petition warrants institution of inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and cited supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner to the T-Mobile IPR. Petitioner timely filed its Motion for Joinder within one month after 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. institution of trial in the T-Mobile IPR, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner challenges the same claims that are challenged in the T-Mobile IPR on the same grounds using the same prior art and evidence. See, e.g., Joinder Mot. 1, 6–7; compare Pet. 3, 12–39, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 16–41. Petitioner states it will take an “understudy” role in the T-Mobile IPR and only assume a primary role should all Carriers cease participation in the T-Mobile IPR. See Joinder Mot. 6. Petitioner further asserts that joinder will have little to no impact on the trial schedule for the T-Mobile IPR and will simplify briefing and discovery. See Joinder Mot. 6, 9–11. Accordingly, joinder to the T-Mobile IPR would further the goals of a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of Petitioner’s challenge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Therefore, for the reasons given, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to the T-Mobile IPR.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,094,888 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00317 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 23–27 on all petition grounds and granted Samsung’s motion to join the T-Mobile IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“B. Institution of Inter Partes Review The Petition in this proceeding asserts the same grounds of unpatentability as the grounds on which we instituted review in the T-Mobile IPR. Compare Pet. 3, 12–39, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 16–41. Indeed, Petitioner contends that “the grounds of challenge in this Petition are a ‘copycat’ of the Petition filed in T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, IPR2024-00135” and the “expert declaration filed in this proceeding is substantively identical to the expert declaration in IPR2024- 00135 and signed by the same expert.” Id. at 1.” slip op. at 7
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“103(a) Chang III. ANALYSIS A. Discretionary Denial Argument Patent Owner asserts “[t]o the extent that the Board institutes review of the First Petition, institution of the Second Petition should be denied as an unnecessary parallel petition.” Prelim. Resp. 3. We denied institution in the first ranked proceeding. See Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Cobblestone Wireless LLC, IPR2024-00318, Paper 11 (PTAB June 21, 2024). Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and cited supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner to the T-Mobile IPR. Petitioner timely filed its Motion for Joinder within one month after institution of trial in the T-Mobile IPR, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner challenges the same claims that are challenged in the T-Mobile IPR on the same grounds using the same prior art and evidence. See, e.g., Mot. 1, 6–7; compare Pet. 3, 12–39, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 16–41. Petitioner states it will take an “understudy” role in the T-Mobile IPR and only assume a primary role should all Carriers cease participation in the T- Mobile IPR. See Mot. 6. Petitioner further asserts that joinder will have little to no impact on the trial schedule for the T-Mobile IPR and will simplify briefing and discovery. See Mot. 6, 9–11. Accordingly, joinder to the T-” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,554,196 - PTAB · Mar 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00037 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9, 12–24, and 27–31 under the stated grounds and granted Juniper’s motion to join the Cisco IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response. For the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the Cisco IPR, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable. We therefore institute trial as to all challenged claims on all grounds stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“institution of the Cisco IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As noted, the Petition in this case asserts the same unpatentability grounds on which we instituted review in the Cisco IPR. See Mot. 4–5. Petitioner also relies on the same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by the Cisco petitioner. See id. at 5. Indeed, the Petition is nearly identical to the petition filed by the Cisco petitioner. See id. Thus, this inter partes review does not present any ground or matter not already at issue in the Cisco IPR. Id. If joinder is granted, Petitioner agrees to assume an “‘understudy’ role” and agrees that this role shall apply unless the Cisco petitioner ceases to participate in the instituted IPR. Id. at 6–7. Petitioner further represents that it will not advance any arguments separate from those advanced by the Cisco petitioner in the consolidated filings. Id. Because Petitioner expects to participate only in a limited capacity, Petitioner submits that joinder will not impact the trial schedule for the Cisco IPR. Id. at 5. Patent Owner did not file an Opposition to the Motion for Joinder. Based on the above, we determine that joinder with the Cisco IPR is appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 10,652,111 - PTAB · Feb 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00026 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–31 on all petition grounds and granted Juniper’s motion to join the Cisco IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“language of § 315(c) requires two different decisions.” Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “First, the statute requires that the Director (or the Board acting through a delegation of authority . . . ) determine whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314.” Id. “Second, to effect joinder, § 315(c) requires the Director to exercise [her] discretion to decide whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant.” Id. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and any preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The patentability challenges in the Cisco IPR met the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). IPR2023-00401, Paper 10, 30–31. The Petition here presents the same patentability challenges as those for which a trial was instituted in the Cisco IPR. See Mot. 4 (“[This] Petition is substantively identical to the Cisco IPR and relies on identical exhibits.”); compare Pet. 1–74, with IPR2023-00401, Paper 2, 9–79. According to Petitioner, the “[t]he same claims of the same patent are challenged under the same unpatentability grounds as the Cisco IPR.” Mot. 4. In the present proceeding, Patent Owner did not file a preliminary response to dispute the merits of Petitioner’s patentability challenges. For the reasons set forth in the Cisco IPR, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the We accordingly determine that the Petition warrants institution under § 314, and turn to Petitioner’s request for joinder.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). Petitioner filed the Motion on October 10, 2023, within one month of institution of the Cisco IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner asserts that the Motion should be granted because the joinder “won’t impact the Cisco IPR trial schedule in any meaningful way.” Mot. 5. Petitioner also agrees to take an “understudy” role in the Cisco IPR. See Mot. 5–7. Specifically, Petitioner agrees to the following: (1) Petitioner “won’t make any substantive filings, and . . . agrees that Cisco alone will be responsible for all substantive petitioner filings in the joined proceeding;” (2) “to be bound by all filings by Cisco in the joined proceeding, except for filings regarding termination and settlement;” (3) Petitioner “must obtain prior Board authorization to file any paper or to take any action on its own in the joined proceeding;” (4) Petitioner “shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already instituted by the Board in the Cisco IPR, or introduce any argument or discovery not already introduced by Cisco;” (5) Petitioner “shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and Cisco concerning discovery and depositions;” (6) Petitioner “will not cross-examine or defend any witness at deposition;” (7) “Cisco will be responsible for any oral hearing presentation, including the preparation of demonstrative exhibits”; and (8) “Should Cisco cease participation in the proceeding[, Petitioner] would assume a primary role, meaning it would take over the role previously filled by Cisco.” Mot. 6. As mentioned before, Patent Owner did not file an opposition to the Motion. the Cisco IPR which was instituted on identical grounds, we determine that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner as a party to the Cisco IPR.” slip op. at 9
NonePatents in suitUS 7,545,740 - PTAB · Feb 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00034 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all petition grounds and granted Juniper’s motion to join the Cisco IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The patentability challenges in the Cisco IPR met the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). IPR2023-00402, Paper 11, 30. The Petition here presents the same patentability challenges as those for which a trial was instituted in the Cisco IPR. See Mot. 4 (“[This] Petition is substantively identical to the Cisco IPR and relies on identical exhibits.”); compare Pet. 1–80, with IPR2023-00402, Paper 2, 9–85. According to Petitioner, the “[t]he same claims of the same patent are challenged under the same unpatentability grounds as the Cisco IPR.” Mot. 4. In the present proceeding, Patent Owner did not file a preliminary response to dispute the merits of Petitioner’s patentability challenges. For the reasons set forth in the Cisco IPR, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims of the ’821 Patent. See IPR2023-00402, Paper 11, 14–39. We accordingly determine that the Petition warrants institution under § 314, and turn to Petitioner’s request for joinder.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Because Petitioner will take an understudy role that will not impact the Cisco IPR which was instituted on identical grounds, we determine that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner as a party to the Cisco IPR.” slip op. at 9
NonePatents in suitUS 8,830,821 - Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand
The majority determined claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst; the dissent would have found them obvious.
RulingsRemand decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We determine Patent Owner’s reading of the claim limitation is the better one. The limitation begins with the verb “locating,” and it therefore makes sense that the clause would recite what is located (i.e., encryption information) and where it is located (i.e., within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video). In other words, it is reasonable that the second and third clauses of the limitation both modify the first clause (for example, as could perhaps be expressed through the use of commas as “locating encryption information, that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video, within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video”).10 On the other hand, Petitioner’s reading of the limitation, 10 In general, we recognize that the use of commas to set off phrases in claim drafting is not consistent. We included commas above to illustrate Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim limitation. allowing only the second clause to modify the first, while not unreasonable, makes less sense. That is, the encrypted information identifies the encrypted portions of frames, which in turn are within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. Reading the claim in its entirety, the encrypted portions of frames would be understood to be located within the requested portions of the stream; it does not seem necessary for the claim to expressly recite that aspect. For example, the very next limitation— limitation [m] of claim 1—refers to “each encrypted portion of the frames of video” but does not expressly recite “within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Ex. 1001, 27:58–60. Thus, when limitation [l] recites “within the requested portions of the selected stream,” it seems more likely that the clause refers to where that encrypted information is located rather than simply to indicate the obvious location of the encrypted portion of the frames of video. We therefore view Patent Owner’s reading of the claim language as the better one.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundMixed
“I am persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17– 19, 69–70). I agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41– 15:60). I determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 52
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“I agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, specifically pages 1–7, attempt to address aspects of claim 1 for the first time on remand. I also agree that Patent Owner’s arguments attempt to recharacterize limitations [j] and [k] to raise issues that Patent Owner did not raise previously, in contravention of our Order that issues raised needed support from “where those issues were raised in previous briefings by the parties.” Paper 56, 2. I have addressed whether scalability and FEC are integral to how Chen operates above, as well as whether the Petition relies on those aspects, supra. The questions about how Chen operates and what portions of Chen are asserted in the ground of unpatentability were previously raised, but now are being considered or reconsidered, based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. In Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, pages 1–7, the citations to argument previously raised do not support the arguments now presented by Patent Owner on remand. As such, I determine Patent Owner’s new arguments fall outside the scope of remand, and I dismiss these arguments seeking to distinguish limitations [j] and [k] from the cited prior art combination.24” slip op. at 62
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed
“7 Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand recognizes that there are two arguments Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner Response that were not addressed in the Final Written Decision. See PO Remand Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 24–37 (the construction of “locating encrypted information . . . within requested portions”), 38–58 (referring to Patent Owner’s “common keys” argument)). 8 The Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42). See Final Dec. 28–37 (granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part Petitioner’s Motion). Our determinations on that Motion were part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not impact our previous rulings on the Motion, we maintain those rulings here. Additionally, on remand, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions, which we held in abeyance until the parties’ briefing on remand was complete. See Ex. 3003, 1. Petitioner requests sanctions because of the impropriety of Patent Owner’s remand brief, including new claim construction arguments for limitations [1j] and [1k], and prejudice to Petitioner. Id. at 3, 5. Although we reserved further consideration of Petitioner’s request, we expanded both the time and pages allowed for Petitioner’s responsive brief, and also allowed Petitioner to address any related issues in its responsive brief. Id. at 1. Having considered the parties’ briefing on remand, and given that we do not reach the claim construction arguments that Petitioner objected to in its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions, we deny Petitioner’s request.” slip op. at 5
Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,225,588 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–6 on all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Szrek and did not reach the Llach–Szrek ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than at issue in IPR2020-00084. Second, although the parties may have gained insight as to how the Board would handle challenges based on the same references asserted in the earlier proceeding, that insight (to the extent it gives an advantage) applies to both parties. Third, the first proceeding was a post-grant review that had a specific timing requirement (see 35 U.S.C. § 321(c)), in contrast to the present proceeding in which the filing of the Petition did not have the same or similar time constraint.6 In these circumstances, we find it appropriate to give less weight to factors based on the mere passage of time such as whether Petitioner knew of the prior art at the time of filing the petition in PGR2020- 00084 (clearly Petitioner did because two of the same references are asserted here) and whether Petitioner had received Patent Owner’s preliminary response from PGR2020-00084 at the time of filing the instant Petition. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we do not dive headfirst into these matters that are better addressed by the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).7 Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that we should follow the Board’s decision in PGR2020-00084 and construe “transaction processor” and “data package” in accordance with each term’s plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; see id. at 13–19. Patent Owner does not take a position as to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. In PGR2020-00084, the Board construed “transaction processor”8 in accordance with its plain meaning as “a processor . . . that processes transactions between two devices” and specifically “decline[d] to limit processors . . . to ‘third party’ processors . . . because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty.” Ex. 1008, 22. And, as Petitioner indicates, the Board determined that “data package” also is understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 22–24; see id. at 24 n.10. At this stage of the proceeding 8 In that proceeding, the Board also construed “transaction processor system.” Ex. 1008, 13–22. and on the present record, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,865,135 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-01004 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–9, and 12–14 are unpatentable; claims 2–4 and 15–20 were not shown unpatentable, based on the asserted prior-art challenges.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–9 and 12–20 of the ’943 patent. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6). After receiving authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to the Preliminary Response (Paper 7), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 8). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–9 and 12–20 of the ’943 patent on all presented challenges. Paper 13 (“Inst. Dec.”), 2, 71.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMixed
“2. Claim 1 The parties dispute whether Petitioner has shown a motivation to” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS 9,614,943 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,614,943
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.