• Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01481 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 314(a), based on its Fintiv analysis, including the earlier district court trial date and weakness in the merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “date in the Lenovo Group case as the main indicator of a trial court reaching the merits of the invalidity of the patent-at-issue before we issue a final written decision. Accordingly, this factor strongly favors discretionary denial of the Petition.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and three years of experience with data communications systems or interfaces, including at least some experience with serial or display data communications systems or interfaces.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training and three years of work experience with data communications.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7. The differences between the definitions are minor and immaterial to our decision. We regard either description as consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed

    “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner reports that it “does not believe that any specialized constructions are necessary.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner “does not disagree.” Prelim. Resp. 6. However, Petitioner’s challenge raises an implicit claim construction issue not addressed in the Petition that we discuss in our analysis below.” slip op. at 15

  • BurdenNot reached

    “example, claim 11 recites “receiving a synchronization symbol by a receiver indicating a packet type, each packet type having a different synchronization symbol.” Ex. 1001, 37:53–55. The other independent claims challenged in the Petition are similar in their recitation of a “synchronization symbol.” See id. at 37:9 (claim 1), 38:26–27 (claim 19). Petitioner argues this limitation is disclosed by Auld in view of MPEG-2 Part. 1. Pet. 15–16. Citing Figure 5 of Auld, reproduced in Section IV.C.1, supra, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he ‘sync codes’ in Auld consist of sequences of symbols that are used for synchronization, and therefore qualify as synchronization symbols.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner responds that “what the Petitioners identified as a ‘synchronization symbol’ [in Auld] is in what they have identified as a ‘packet of (or having) symbols.’” Prelim. Resp. 1. In contrast, “[i]n the specification and claims of the ’798 Patent, the claimed ‘synchronization symbol’ is separate from, and precedes, the claimed ‘packet of (or having) symbols.’” Prelim. Resp. 1. In disputing Petitioner’s identification in Auld of a synchronization symbol as claimed, Patent Owner points to Figure 9A of the ’798 patent (reproduced in Section II.C, supra), showing synchronization primitives 901 and 905 as separate from and transmitted before packets 902 and 907, respectively. Id. at 4. Patent Owner also relies on the description of the Figure 9A embodiment in the ’798 patent specification. Id. at 3–5. That description places transmission of the synchronization primitive encoded with the patent type before the control packet in the transmission sequence:” slip op. at 18

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,746,798
• HP Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01429 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, exercising § 314(a) discretion based on the Fintiv factors, especially the earlier district court trial date and weaknesses in the merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “is our focus here. As stated, that trial is set to occur about six months before a final written decision would issue in this proceeding. The District Court has stated that this trial date setting “cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause.” Prelim. Resp. 17. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported argument that the trial date is speculative. We also consider the fact that the median time-to-trial statistic projects a trial date of July 2025, earlier than the actual date set by the District Court. Ex. 2002; Ex. 2008; Prelim. Resp. 17–18. The fact that the time-to-trial statistic is earlier than the trial date set by Judge Gilstrap confirms that the schedule set by the District Court is credible and should be given weight. From this evidence, we are persuaded that we should rely on the trial date in the Lenovo Group litigation as the main indicator of a trial court reaching the merits of the invalidity of the patent-at-issue before we issue a final written decision. Accordingly, this factor strongly favors exercising discretionary denial. C.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied

    “integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv at 6. Because of the Sotera stipulation, factor 4 weighs strongly in favor of not exercising discretion. However, two other factors weigh in favor of exercising discretion, especially the trial date factor. The merits of Petitioner’s challenge are not particularly strong. A balanced assessment of the factors leads us to exercise discretion to deny the Petition. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence of record favors exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review challenging claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 23, 25, 31, 53, 68, 70–72, 74, and 75. IV. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence presented, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review challenging claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 23, 25, 31, 53, 68, 70–72, 74, and 75 of the ’307 patent. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The parties each raise facially valid points based on the claim language. Petitioner has the burden to show “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 b(3). Petitioner does not explain how, under its broad construction, the decoder “decodes the encoded data to recover application and control bits in accordance with a line code.” That is, if the encoding does not encode both “application and control bits,” then how can decoding “recover” both under Petitioner’s claim construction? It is not clear on this preliminary record whether the specification supports Petitioner’s broad claim construction. For this reason, Petitioner’s showing based upon the broad claim construction outlined above is not “particularly strong.” See Fintiv at 14–15. As discussed further below, Petitioner also presents a showing under Patent Owner’s more narrow construction. 3.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 15). Relying on its declarant, Dr. Wolfe, Petitioner proposes materially the same level. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26– 29). Based on a review of the record, we adopt the parties’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’307 patent.” slip op. at 14

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,187,307
• BMW Of North America, LLC / Robert Bosch LLC et al. v. Foras Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01373 · APJ Carl W Whitehead Jr · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 13–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen because the combination teaches determining whether lockstep is recoverable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 8–9. In its Response, Patent Owner does not take exception to our definition. See PO Resp. 3. However, Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience with computer architecture design.” Id. We find Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art are not meaningfully distinguishable from one another. Accordingly, we do not see the need to modify our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. However, our findings would not change even under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We are satisfied that Mr. Jones qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 2008, 1 (“Summary” including “embedded systems including both software and hardware”, “Representative Design Work” including, e.g., “Design and implement multiple device drivers for complex Integrated circuits,” “Design of a highly fault tolerant, distributed data acquisition and control, system for a rebreather . . . system architecture, hardware design and layout, embedded firmware, documentation,” “hardware and firmware design,” “[h]ardware and firmware for controlling a unique, battery powered diesel burner…”), 2–3 (list of Publications). We are also satisfied that Mr. Jones’ degree in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering is sufficiently “equivalent” to a degree in Computer Engineering or Computer Science. See PO Sur-reply 11. We decline to give Mr. Jones’ declaration no weight for several additional reasons. One, Petitioner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude Mr. Jones’ declaration, nor has Petitioner filed an objection. See Pet. Reply 2–5; see also Hearing Tr. 32, 33:15–34:8. Two, we are afforded broad discretion in assigning weight that is to be accorded expert testimony. See Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Board was well within its discretion to give more credibility to [one expert over another] unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so.”); see also CTPG5 34–36. In sum, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony should be given no weight because Mr. Jones is not qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art according to our definition. See Pet. Reply 2–5; see also PO Sur-reply 10–13. 5 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (CTPG) (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Patent Owner did not challenge Petitioner’s position on these terms. See Prelim. Resp. 1–13. We determined there were no claim terms that needed to be construed in our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 9– 10. Post-institution, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of these terms and “does not believe either term requires construction, because . . . Petitioner fails to demonstrate obviousness regardless of how these terms [(“lockstep is recoverable” and “loss of lockstep is recoverable”)] are construed. PO Resp. 2. We agree with Patent Owner that no claim construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. That is, we do not discern any claim terms that are in controversy on the full record. 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 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We find Mr. Jones’ testimony amounts to conjecture because it is unsupported by evidence, for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 2007 ¶ 32; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight”). However, we find that Dr. Brogioli provides sufficient persuasive evidence as to how firmware FRC logic would be used and modified in the Bigbee/Nguyen combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 57–58, 96–98. As discussed above, Bigbee uses firmware FRC logic to check for an error within a processor core. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35–37, Fig. 4A. Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic does not determine if lockstep is recoverable. Id. Similar to Bigbee, Nguyen also uses firmware FRC logic to check for an error within a processor core. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 9, 18, Fig. 7. However, the difference is that Nguyen’s firmware FRC logic determines if lockstep is recoverable. Id. We find for the reasons given by Petitioner and Dr. Brogioli including those summarized supra, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bigbee by implementing Nguyen’s determination in firmware. Pet. 33–35 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 94 (stating that “[i]mplementing logical steps in firmware was known in the art”); ¶ 95 (stating that Bigbee’s system “is compliant with well-known industry standards”); ¶ 98 (stating that “firmware is flexible” and “can be modified after production, updated, and supported relatively quickly and inexpensively.”)). In contrast, Patent Owner’s arguments fail to convince us that a person of ordinary skill in the art, having knowledge of Nguyen’s teaching of determining lockstep recovery, would not have able to modify Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic to determine if lockstep is recoverable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also id. at 418. Accordingly, Petitioner has presented reasoning, with rational underpinnings, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to modify Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic based upon Nguyen’s teachings and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Accordingly, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that this element is taught or suggested by the Bigbee/Nguyen combination.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,502,958 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,502,958
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies, Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01281 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 13 would have been obvious over Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., 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”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in Sept. 2007 would have had a working knowledge of network communications techniques and highspeed packet processing technologies. Ex.1003, ¶20. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in network communications. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶20. Pet. 13. We use this definition for purposes of this Decision because it appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the ’471 patent.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner asserts that no terms require express construction. Pet. 13. We do not expressly construe any terms at this time. Realtime, 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 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “As to the claim requirement that the direct memory access device concurrently write the packet buffer memory and the protocol stack layer memory, Petitioner asserts that neither Cornett nor Paatela explicitly describes the timing of packet writing. Pet. 42. Petitioner asserts, however, that Nelson discloses writing a packet header separately and in parallel with writing the entire packet. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 6:66–7:4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Indeed, Nelson explains that the parallel storage action “avoid[s] having to read the frames out of the [larger frame] buffer” when reading a header, which eliminates the need for a separate reading step and “allows the routing decision to be made before the [frame] buffer becomes available.” Ex. 1006, 2:1–22 (containing the quoted language), 7:1–4 (describing “parallel . . . storage”). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to write the packet header at the same time as writing the entire packet in Cornett, because Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson are concerned with speed, and writing in parallel would increase speed (vs. writing serially). Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90); see also id. at 26 (similar argument). Reviewing Petitioner’s position with respect to independent claim 13, we determine that Petitioner has addressed each limitation in sufficient detail and with adequate citations to the record. Petitioner has also provided sufficient reasons for combining the teachings of Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Reviewing the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,738,471
• BMW Of North America, LLC v. Foras Technologies Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01347 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–27 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). We must also consider the non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part), which “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesNo construction neededOther

    “1. Means-Plus-Function Terms Challenged claim 26 recites elements using the word “means.” See Ex. 1001, 21:6–22:5. The use of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies.9 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. We must first identify the claimed function. Then, we must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Id. at 1351 (citation omitted). The parties do not dispute that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies to those “means” elements recited in claim 26. See Pet. 6–8; see generally Prelim. Resp. a. “system firmware means for detecting loss of lockstep (LOL) for a processor in a multi-processor system” (Claim limitation [26a])” slip op. at 24

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner argues that these terms “should be construed to include both mismatch errors and errors that may eventually result in mismatch errors constituting a ‘precursor to lockstep mismatch’—including at least one of (1) detecting a lockstep mismatch error; and (2) detecting an error that may eventually cause a lockstep mismatch error.” Pet. 6. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he specification provides detecting these two types of errors as examples of detection of LOL.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:40–3:6, 7:25–36; Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 34–36). Petitioner further asserts that this construction “is consistent with the undisputed construction in the IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958.” Id. (citing BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Foras Techs. Ltd., IPR2023-01373, Paper 18 at 2 (PTAB July 12, 2024)). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position or discuss claim construction in the Preliminary Response. meaning of these claim terms that would affect this Decision. Therefore, we determine that at this stage, we do not need to expressly construe these claim terms to resolve a controversy. 3. Summary and Conclusion For the reasons given, we determine that at this stage, we do not need expressly to construe any claim term for this Decision. 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., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent, and at least two years of prior work experience with computer architecture design, including fault-tolerant computer architecture design,” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 28–30). At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to this contention. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’302 patent specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,624,302
• AT&T Services Inc. / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Asus Technology Licensing Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00997 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–10, exercising its discretion under § 314(a) because the Fintiv factors favored denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “Based on the preliminary record, we can reasonably expect trial in the parallel district court proceedings to begin four to five months prior to the deadline for our final written decision, based on the scheduled trial date and the median time-to-trial statistics. See Fintiv Memo 8–9 & n.12 (approving the use of median time-to-trial statistics). Even if the proceedings are staggered, at least one of the proceedings would likely begin and conclude well before our decision, making it highly likely that there will be duplicate efforts in evaluating the challenged claims based on the prior art. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the second factor weighs substantially in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “and Trademark Office under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “ordinary skill in the art. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312– 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (the level of ordinary skill is pertinent to claim construction); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) (the level of ordinary skill is one of the factors to consider when determining obviousness). For this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which is “the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or Computer Engineering; familiarity with the relevant 3GPP standards as of this time; and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of cellular networks.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–44). Although Patent Owner argues for a higher level of ordinary skill (see Prelim. Resp. 7–8), our determination that the Petition lacks compelling merits would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The parties argue that we need not address any claim-construction issues for our analysis, and we agree. See Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 25. 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 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,798,754
• Mianyang Boe Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. / Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Company, Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00620 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–8, 14–22, and 25 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Tobita obviousness grounds and declining General Plastic denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a relevant technical degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Materials Science, Physics, or the like, and experience in active matrix display design and electroluminescence.” Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 36). Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s proposed definition because it “entails only general ‘circuit design’ experience with no experience in active matrix display design and electroluminescence, the subject matter of the ’593 Patent.” Id. at 17; see also Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 38–39 (Dr. Wolfe’s testimony regarding the same). In particular, Patent Owner argues that “[i]mportant aspects and considerations of the pixel circuit design are unique to the context of active matrix display design and to electroluminescent displays.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 38). Patent Owner additionally notes that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the ITC Investigation adopted Patent Owner’s definition. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2018, 12). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although “[t]he challenged patent pertains generally to the field of OLED displays,” it is directed “more particularly to the circuitry used to drive and control the pixels that comprise the light-generating elements of the display.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 29; see also Ex. 1001, 1:16– 18 (describing the Field of the Invention as relating to “a stage circuit and an organic light emitting display using the same”). Moreover, we note, for example, that claim 1 does not include any limitations directed to “active matrix displays” or any other particular type of display, which suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan need not have had specific experience designing such displays. See Ex. 1001, 9:43–45 (reciting “[a] stage circuit”). In addition, Patent Owner’s proposed definition is imprecise because it does not quantify the amount of experience possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Therefore, at this stage, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because we find it to be more consistent with the teachings of the ’593 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededOther

    “For purposes of this Decision, we apply the same construction as the ITC ALJ, i.e., that controlling the voltage of the second node does not require the voltage of the second node to be determined by the first driver alone. This is supported by contrast with another limitation in claim 1, which expressly recites direct control: “the signal of the third input terminal directly controls.” Ex. 1001, 9:58 (emphasis added). This is also supported by a paragraph in the Specification of the ’593 patent explaining that the Specification uses the word “directly” in contexts where the same is intended. Id. at 4:19–26. Further, as noted by the ITC ALJ, the Specification of the ’593 patent states that the second driver “controls the voltage on the first node” where such control is accomplished in conjunction with the outputting unit. Ex. 2018, 31–32 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:60–62, claims 1, 15). This supports the ITC ALJ’s understanding with respect to the first driver, i.e., that control can occur in conjunction with other elements.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Specifically, Petitioner relies on the timing diagram in Figure 21B of Kimura to illustrate the operation of the circuit in Figure 27C. Pet. 19 (reproducing Ex. 1004, Fig. 21B). Petitioner acknowledges that the timing diagram “is not specific to the device of Figure 27C.” Id. Still, Petitioner contends the Figure 27C circuit “would (or at least obviously could) be supplied with input signals in the same manner and with the same timing” because it includes “the same input and output lines and many of the same transistors as Kimura’s other circuits.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–165). According to the timing diagram, the potential of node 13 (V13) is shown at its highest level during period D. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 21B. Petitioner also cites Kimura for teaching that “the potential of the node 13 becomes an H level.” Pet. 18 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 256). Yet Kimura describes the Figure 27C circuit’s operation at period D differently: “[I]n a period D, the potential of the node 13 can be lowered. Therefore, dielectric breakdown or deterioration of the transistor connected to the node 13 (e.g., the transistor 102, the transistor 203, the transistor 205, or the transistor 206) can be prevented.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 286 (emphasis added). And Petitioner cites this very teaching in its analysis of limitation [1-B]. See Pet. 20–21. This inconsistency undermines Petitioner’s argument that “the device of Figure 27C . . . would (or at least obviously could) be supplied with input signals in the same manner and with the same timing.” Id. at 19. In light of this inconsistency, and in the absence of a sufficient explanation as to why Kimura’s teachings about different circuits apply to the Figure 27C circuit on which Petitioner relies, we find Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 to be deficient. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Kimura.” slip op. at 26

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDecided for petitioner

    “presents facts that are different from those in General Plastic because Petitioner here did not use a prior Board decision or a prior preliminary response as a roadmap. Given the lack of road-mapping specific to our proceedings, we find that Factor 3 weighs strongly against exercising discretion to deny institution. Further, we note that “factors 1–3 only weigh in favor of discretionary denial when there are ‘road-mapping’ concerns under factor 3 or other concerns under factor 2.” Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00861, Paper 19 at 5 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2022) (precedential) (“Code200”). Although Patent Owner alleges concerns under Factor 2 insofar as Petitioner knew or should have known of the asserted references at the time of the petition in IPR2023-01221 (Prelim. Resp. 9–12; PO Prelim. Sur-reply 2), we find such concerns to be of minimal significance where there is no road-mapping. Thus, we consider Factor 1 in conjunction with Factors 2 and 3 (see Code200 at 5) and find that Factors 1– 3 weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution. Similarly, the timing of the second petition in relation to the filing of the first petition (Factor 4), and when petitioner learned of the prior art (Factor 5), are more pertinent to the situation where the second petition is filed by a party using prior art allegedly newly discovered after receiving the Board’s unfavorable decision, as was the case in General Plastic, or after a preliminary response was filed in the first case. General Plastic at 10. That is not the situation before us here. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 4–9) that the interplay between the instant case and the ITC Investigation implicates the same concerns from General Plastic about abuse or gamesmanship from multiple, staggered petitions. See General Plastic at 16–17. As in Code200, we find that “Patent Owner’s concerns of fairness are outweighed by the benefits to the patent system of improving patent quality by reviewing the merits of the challenges raised in the petitions, which have not been addressed to date.” Code200 at 6. Thus, we determine that Factors 4 and 5 do not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. Regarding Factor 6, Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Board should not expend its finite resources to endorse Petitioner’s second bite at the apple.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Nevertheless, because the earlier proceeding was terminated at Petitioner’s request, the Board has not previously considered the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions, and the Board’s involvement in the parties’ disputes related to the ’593 patent has been minimal up to this juncture. In the absence of meaningful efficiency concerns, we find that Factor 6 does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. For Factor 7, we know of no reason why we could not meet the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination within one year of institution, so we also find that this factor does not weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution. After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, we conclude that the General Plastic factors weigh against exercising our discretion to deny review.” slip op. at 61

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,330,593
• Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00459 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 10–31 are unpatentable under §103 over the asserted combinations involving Chandra or Keohane.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and . . . at least two years’ practical experience with computer networking and computer security.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner asserts that its positions would be the same under either proposal. Id. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as more consistent with the prior art and the ’825 patent, but our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “claims 1, 15, 21, and 27 recite methods in which a first network security appliance of a CSF receives network traffic to inspect, determines whether the traffic was transmitted from a second network security appliance that executed security operations on the traffic, determines network security operations for the first network security appliance to execute based on any security operations executed by the second network security appliance, and executes operations on the traffic. Ex. 1001, 10:58–11:17, 12:31–60, 13:20– 47, 14:13–37. As claimed, network traffic may travel in one direction from a second network security appliance to a first network security appliance. The ’825 patent describes unidirectional traffic as “one embodiment” of the CSF. A first network security appliance receives incoming network traffic and determines if the incoming network traffic is transmitted from a second network security appliance based on the source address of the traffic and determines operations that the second network security appliance executed. Ex. 1001, 2:48–56. In this embodiment, traffic travels in a single incoming direction between network security appliances. Tr. 30:22–31:18. The ’825 patent also describes the “cooperation” in a CSF as “[t]he network packet carrying the flag is transmitted to another member node at the next hop.” Ex. 1001, 6:28–34 (emphasis added); id. at 8:3–8. Traffic always flows from one hop to a next hop along the same path between root 220 at the edge of the network and each particular endpoint (leaf) shown in Figure 2 below. Traffic does not flow along different interconnected paths when it travels from root 220 to an endpoint leaf 240a–240d, 250 as Patent Owner asserts is required of a CSF. PO Resp. 13–15. Figure 2 is “an exemplary topology of a cooperative security fabric (CSF)” with Patent Owner’s annotation of network traffic paths. Ex. 1001, 2:29–31; PO Resp. 16. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to branch 230a to leaf 240a to the blue end node. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to leaf 250 to the red end node. Traffic from the green node travels along a single path to leaf 240d to branch 230b to root 220. Network security appliances only cooperate along a single red, green,” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “(3) Analysis We agree with Petitioner that “the claims only require two appliances and traffic to go from one appliance to the other.” Reply 11. Nothing in the claims or element 1[a] requires network traffic to originate from outside the private network or the CSF. Dr. Black testifies that the background of the ’825 patent describes a need for a CSF to coordinate operations performed on network traffic that is “transmitted to/from the network” to avoid or reduce redundant operations among members of the CSF” (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 44, 50), but Dr. Black describes the claimed network fabric and CSF entirely in the context of controlling network traffic transmitted within the enterprise network topology 200 as illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’825 patent (id. ¶ 52), which we discussed in Section II.B.1. supra and reproduce again below. In Figure 2, Patent Owner annotates paths taken by network traffic within network topology 200 comprising root 220, branches 230a, 230b, and leaves 240a–d, 250 within network 200. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 52. In addition, Chandra’s network 102 is “a collection of individual networks, interconnected with each other and functioning as a single large network.”7 Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. Network 102 can include LANs, WANs, and/or MANs. Id. As a result, network devices 104 located in different networks of network 102 transmit to one another via edge network links 218 within this internetwork of networks 102. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 21–30, Figs. 1, 2; Pet. 22–26. Transmitting and receiving CEs 208, 214 are security-based devices at the edges of different networks in network 102 to control incoming network traffic sent between transmitting and receiving network devices 206, 212 located in different networks. Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. A plurality of CEs can be associated with a single PE to receive incoming network traffic from a transmitting CE. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Thus, network traffic is transmitted from network devices 104 connected to a plurality of CEs that connect to other CEs via edge network link 218 and to other network devices 104 connected to those CEs “along multiple interconnected paths” (see id. ¶¶ 28–30) that satisfies Patent Owner’s definition of CSF (PO Resp. 13). The sending and receiving CEs “constitute multiple cooperating network security appliances” contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 38), as do CEs 208, 214.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Buruganahalli’s topology of devices 50, 52, 54 coordinates security operations that they perform on network data 58 sent from network device 54 to network device 52 to network device 50 from one hop to the next hop. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30–32, 34–36, 38–40, 46–48, Fig. 3. We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to update Chandra’s metadata tag for a multi-CE path to indicate actions taken, as Buruganahalli teaches, to reduce latency and resource waste. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28)). Dr. Franz testifies it would have been obvious to arrange Chandra’s different network security appliance CEs in series so that traffic passed through multiple CEs that performed different security functions in a CSF before reaching a receiving PE, as Chandra and Buruganahalli teach or suggest. Ex. 1019 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125). Patent Owner’s argument that the CEs are not in series does not address Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to place them in series, as Buruganahalli discloses, to perform different security operations on network traffic. Pet. 54; Ex. 1019 ¶ 60; Cf. Sur-reply 20–21. Petitioner contends that Chandra’s system also transmits data packets with updated labels to devices in an extended virtual private network (VPN) shown in Figure 8. Pet. 54. Petitioner asserts it was well known to connect a private network of a remote company site to another network such as an enterprise network using a VPN tunnel, and it would have been obvious to attach the VPN in Figure 8 to a private network as an extension of Figure 2’s private network. Pet. 54–56. Petitioner contends that, in such instances, a receiving CE would transmit data packets with the updated label to a receiving device in an extended network using the transmitting and receiving end configurations shown in Figures 2 and 8 of Chandra. Id. at 54. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to connect Chandra’s Figure 2 private network to Chandra’s Figure 8 VPN network to extend enterprise network communications so the next device in the extended VPN network would be “a next network appliance participating in the CSF” as claimed. Pet. 54–56; Reply 26–27 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 61). We also agree with Dr. Franz who testifies: Contrary to the PO’s assertion that “Petitioner…provides no rationale for why a POSITA would modify Chandra by combining Figures 2 and 8, or explain why a POSITA would reasonably expect it to succeed (POR, 45),” I provided ample reasons why a POSITA would have found it obvious that the VPN in Chandra’s Figure 8 could be attached as an extension to the private network in Chandra’s Figure 2 as illustrated below. In fact, I provided an example of a widely circulated official publication by the U.S. National Security Agency containing a reference architecture that recommended cascading multiple VPN solutions for added security. (Franz. Decl. ¶126-130.) Ex. 1019 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–130).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,084,825 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,084,825
• Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00458 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 are unpatentable under § 103 over the five asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 (2020) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 of the ’678 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a B.S. in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, with at least two years’ experience in computer networking/security.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 16–17 (the positions in the PO Response would be the same under either parties’ proposal). The parties’ proposals are substantially the same. Our decision and analysis would be the same under either party’s proposal.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “c. Analysis The ’678 patent describes storage containers as “directories, directory structures, web directories, folders, . . . files and namespaces of the same.” Id. at 6:44–47; id. at 10:12–15. However, it discloses that data is “stored in the namespaces, directories, folders, files or other storage containers of one or more cloud platforms,” which seems to equate namespaces with storage containers. Id. at 9:23–25. In claim 6, “the step of configuring the namespaces comprises storing content of the file as filenames.” Id. at 20:20–22. One definition of “namespace” is a “grouping of one or more names that represent individual objects within the group in a shared computing environment, such as a network.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition 130 (Microsoft Press 2002) (Ex. 3001). “The names within a namespace are unique, are created according to the same rules, and can be resolved into a particular identifying item of information, such as an IP address or a network device.” Ex. 3001.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “set of names available for naming things.’” Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 101; Ex. 1014 (Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms)); Tr. 5:18–20, 7:21– 8:1. This definition is consistent with the extrinsic evidence cited above. Patent Owner largely agrees with this proposed definition. Dr. Black testifies that “to the extent a namespace is applied to object identifiers, it will define the set of allowable identifiers within a particular context.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 69 (cited in PO Resp. 19). Dr. Black agrees with Dr. Lee’s testimony “that a directory named ‘documents’ is a namespace for the files within that directory––within that ‘documents’ namespace, files can be identified by simply referring to the file name, such as ‘foo.’” Id. ¶ 68. Patent Owner however, asserts that “a name itself (such as an identifier that identifies an object) is not a namespace.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner asserts that the ’678 patent provides “an example of creating a namespace for file chunks as part of the encryption process” as “each chunk can be encrypted based on public and private/secret keys defined by the encryption module 210” “where keys are managed based on user-assigned policies.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]hese policies therefore create a namespace that defines the naming convention for the file chunks (e.g. encryption based on a particular key).” Id. Patent Owner asserts that “storing the file chunks in a folder creates a namespace scope for the file chunks” and namespaces are configured by storing file content as file names. Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71); see Tr. 8:5–11, 11:2–12:11. d. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “namespace” as “a set of names available for naming things.” Consistent with various exemplary embodiments described in the ’678 patent, the set of names available for naming things may be based on a policy that defines the naming convention for files or file chunks, and a namespace may be created by storing files or file chunks in a folder to create a namespace scope for the files or file chunks.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 9,280,678 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,280,678
• Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 17–21 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Houston and Garcia render at least one challenged claim obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Thus, Patent Owner has shown that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Turning to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. As Petitioner argues, there is no evidence that the references in question were meaningfully addressed during the prosecution of the ’520 patent — there was no evaluation of the art or articulation regarding any arguments applying that art. Pet. 11. We note that the IPR petitions were submitted only after the prosecution came to a purported end with an Issue Notification — submission of the petitions briefly postponed issuance, but resulted in no further substantive actions other than a later issuance.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Accordingly, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s specific arguments directed to claim requirement 17[e], and its arguments discussed above generally relating to all of Petitioner’s grounds, for the reasons discussed above, for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that the record sufficiently supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirements 17[e] and 17[f]. d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 17 Based on our analysis set forth above, including our analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations of nonobviousness, we determine, on the current record and for purposes of this Decision, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 45

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’520 patent (September 22, 2012): would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field and two or more years of experience in a related field such as networked computer systems using Internet protocols. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Pet. 40–41; Ex. 2045. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument, that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared, is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the email and folder interface teachings of Garcia to modify Houston. Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 84–93, 102–104, 148, 151–152. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,611,520

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.