- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00318 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 56–64, 66, 68–72, 74, and 76–87 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 65, 67, 73, and 75 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish the required non-contiguous LED clusters.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“F. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 10. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. 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)). Some of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments depend on claim scope, and we address those implicit claim-construction arguments below.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“claim construction: that a controller must associate a target’s identity with a prior target. But the claim language neither imposes nor supports any such requirement. Claim 72 is illustrative, in that it expressly states that the disputed language regarding “illumination provided to the target” is achieved “by repeating the determination of target location, selection of the 10 We agree with Petitioner that the Petition’s reference to “Beam’s system” is a clear typographical error and that the Petition’s substance and citations refer to Karlsson, not Beam. See Pet. Reply 20. cluster and variance to illumination provided to the target, relative to the laterally adjacent areas, based on the subsequent data.” Ex. 1035, 12:8–11. That supports Petitioner’s view that a system can “maintain a variance of the illumination provided to the target” by iteratively performing the “determine,” “select,” and “vary” steps. Claim 80 does not expressly state that steps are repeated, but instead requires the processor be able to identify “a plurality of positions associated with the target” and “change, responsive to the positions associated with the target, first light associated with” LEDs aimed towards the target as the target moves. Id. at 13:30–40. That language, like claim 72’s, does not impose an additional requirement of correlating a detected target to prior detected targets. Rather, it requires that a given target results in multiple identified positions that produce light changes. Based on our understanding of the claim language, Patent Owner’s assertion that, in Karlsson, “[e]ach subsequent detection of light is performed anew and has no relationship to a prior detection and may or may not correspond to the same target” (PO Resp. 52) does not preclude the claim from reading on Karlsson. As Petitioner has identified, the claim language reads on Karlsson’s system when a particular vehicle results in multiple, subsequent detections at multiple positions. Pet. 74. Although Patent Owner poses an alternative situation in which Karlsson’s system might detect other objects rather than the particular vehicle first detected (see PO Resp. 50–51), that does not undermine Petitioner’s showing because the claims do not require that a system perform only as claimed. That is, even if Karlsson’s system detects and accommodates additional targets, if a single target results in multiple light configurations, the claim language is satisfied. And Patent Owner concedes that Karlsson’s system produces “a” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. 56 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 110 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 156 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 59–61. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17– 110:4. While there may be some tradeoffs involved in using a different camera location than Nakamura discusses, those tradeoffs would be balanced by the benefits that Karlsson discloses from locating a camera with each headlamp. Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented as a lighting change by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have had reason to modify Karlsson’s system with Nakamura’s teachings regarding capturing and using image coordinates as summarized above.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00315 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 24, 26, 28–32, 34, 36–40, 42, and 44–47 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 25, 27, 33, 35, 41, 43, and 48–55 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46, 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to 3 Beam, U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158, issued Nov. 7, 2000. Ex. 1005, code (45). 4 English translation of Satonaka et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-101291, published Apr. 18, 1995. Ex. 1014, 0001, code (43). 5 Kobayashi, U.S. Patent No. 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000. Ex. 1008, code (45). 6 Karlsson, WIPO Patent Publication No. 98/54030, published December 3, 1998. Ex. 1010, code (43). 7 English translation of Nakamura et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-65603, published Mar. 10, 1995. Ex. 1013, 0001, code (43). 8 Gotou, U.S. Patent No. 5,588,733, issued Dec. 31, 1996. Ex. 1012, code (45). integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner notes that, during reexamination of the ’551 patent, the Office interpreted “electronic circuitry apparatus for the controlled powering of the LEDs” as a means-plus-function limitation and identified the corresponding structure as “logic control electronics unit 7.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 929–39; Ex. 1001, 25:34–52). Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 9. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to the advantages of Karlsson’s lamp-located sensor, nothing about that arrangement would have changed in the proposed combination. As described, Petitioner proposes using aspects of Nakamura’s processing in combination with Karlsson’s physical system. See Pet. 54–58. Thus, the combination preserves any advantages Karlsson obtains by locating a sensor with each illumination system. As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. Reply 58 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 125 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 168 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 57–59. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17–110:4. It is inapposite that “Nakamura does not contemplate LEDs and therefore does not control light in a similar fashion” as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 60), because Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“however, has not presented Mr. Stam’s declaration as a declaration in this case, instead relying on its expert, Dr. Turk, who “reviewed the objective evidence statements in the Stam declaration.” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 215–216). Dr. Turk, however, was not able to recall the meaning of multiple terms he used in his declaration (Ex. 1053, 124:5–135:18) and asserted that he determined that ADB technology falls within the claims by looking at the Stam declaration, without independently verifying statements in the Stam declaration or reviewing the documents upon which those statements were based (id. at 135:19–137:16). Dr. Turk’s declaration addressing secondary considerations is not credible as to the substance of the asserted secondary considerations, and Patent Owner’s asserted secondary considerations are not persuasive for that reason alone. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner has not shown any evidence that is “the direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.” Pet. Reply 25 (quoting Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal quotations omitted)). In particular, Petitioner asserts that all the elements of the claimed invention were known in the prior art, and thus that Patent Owner cannot show a nexus between any long-felt need or industry praise and the challenged claims. Id. at 25–26. As to independent claims 24 and 32, Patent Owner does not assert any “unique characteristics that are novel and nonobvious over the asserted art.” See PO Resp. 70–71. Patent Owner asserts that claim 40 includes “adapting light emission to provide at least two dark zones with ‘light in-between’” and that the Stam declaration correlates that characteristic with the objective evidence. Id. The Stam declaration addresses claim language reciting illumination “that preserves a first level of illumination illuminating past the other vehicle while preventing glare to a driver of the other vehicle” and asserts that an article discussing that a commercial product’s “[i]ndividually controlled LEDs also provide two or more dark zones with ‘light in-between,’ allowing continuous use of a vehicle’s high-beams to maximize visibility and provide a safer driving experience.” Ex. 2023, 734 (Stam declaration ¶ 117) (quoting Ex. 2023, 182) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not explain and we do not understand the connection between the claim language recited in the declaration and that of claim 40. But even accepting that the reexamination exhibit shows industry praise for a system with claim 40’s feature, Patent Owner has not shown that the feature was novel. As discussed above, we conclude that Karlsson discloses that aspect of claim 40 without modification. See supra at 16 (§ II.B.5). Accordingly, even viewing Patent Owner’s evidence as credible and appropriate, we conclude that it would not establish the required nexus for claim 40. To be clear, Patent Owner’s asserted evidence would not establish nexus for any aspect of the independent claims, because each element is found in the prior art and the only elements for which Petitioner asserts a combination of prior-art teachings—those relating to image coordinates—are not those that Patent Owner relies on for a unique characteristic of the claimed invention. Patent Owner asserts further that industry praise was directed at the “Predictive Curve Illumination feature” recited by dependent claims that require the ability to “accommodate the upcoming road curvature” by adapting the light. PO Resp. 8, 70–71. Patent Owner relies on a report of a new lighting system used by BMW that states, “[t]he benefit of a glare-free function is not only to shadow out other cars but also to provide visibility for upcoming curves and dangerous situations; there is a clear safety gain by illuminating this curve in front of the driver.” Ex. 2023, 727 (quoting Ex. 2023, 177) (emphasis omitted). That statement does not itself establish a nexus to the “Predictive Curve Illumination” claims.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00448 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–21, 23–29, 31, and 32 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In the Institution Decision, we instituted review based on all challenged claims and all challenges included in the Petition. Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We issue this Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–21, 23–29, 31, and 32 are unpatentable but has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Conclusion About Obviousness for Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, the combined disclosures in Law and” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 11,012,474 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,012,474 - Zebra Technologies Corporation v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01374 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–10, 15, 16, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over Garber and Werb, with Andersen added for claims 6, 7, and 18.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field” and “significant experience with detection devices, like RFID and metal detectors.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposal or offer a different definition, and we determine that Petitioner’s formulation is consistent with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’711 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We thus apply Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. B.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“The lack of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 2 The District Court similarly concluded that “sensing subsystem” “is not a means- plus-function term subject to § 112 ¶ 6.” See Ex. 1015, 4. 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “When a claim term lacks the word ‘means,’ the presumption can be overcome . . . if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. at 1349 (citation omitted). “Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.” Id. at 1350 (citation omitted). We conclude that Petitioner has not overcome the presumption against applying § 112, ¶ 6. Petitioner’s critical propositions—that “the ‘sensing subsystem’ term is a nonce word” and that “the purely functional prefix ‘sensing’ does nothing to impart structure to the term ‘subsystem’” (Pet. 6)—are conclusory attorney-argument for which Petitioner points to no adequate evidentiary support. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”). Accordingly, we maintain our determination that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply to “a sensing subsystem configured to provide a signal having a signature representing a presence of a radio frequency identification (RFID) object.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededMixed
“We do not adopt either of the proposed constructions because we conclude they add features from embodiments but fail to identify the required “clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended” to limit the claims in the manner proposed. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Instead, we conclude that “sensing subsystem” is “a component configured to detect a signal representing an object,” as proposed by Petitioner, but without “self-contained.” This is functionally the same as Patent Owner’s proposed construction with the conversion concept omitted, and also consistent with the District Court’s construction, which was “components configured to detect and convert a signal representing an object.” See Ex. 1015, 4.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that “multiscan, coherent signal processing” does not require multiple scans. As noted above, Petitioner and Dr. Sharony acknowledge that “multiscan, coherent signal processing” is not a term of art and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of “multiscan” requires multiple scans because the term is a combination of the prefix “multi,” which means more than one, with “scan.” Interpreting “multiscan” to cover only a single scan would read the prefix “multi” out of the claim term. Similarly, construing “multiscan” to require multiple signals, but not multiple scans, would read “scan” out of the term. Our understanding is consistent with the ’711 patent, which states as follows: The integrated mode of operation may employ multiscan, coherent signal processing of diverse multiple inputs to achieve significantly higher detection sensitivities thereby allowing more precise object location and identification. Ex. 1001, 18:18–22 (emphasis added). This sentence indicates that “multiscan, coherent signal processing” processes “diverse multiple inputs” to achieve higher 4 Here and elsewhere we substitute italics for bold emphasis used by the parties. detection sensitivities. However, it does not redefine the ordinary meaning of the term “multiscan” so that it would cover scanning only once rather than scanning multiple times, or cover receiving multiple inputs but not multiple scans.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,557,711 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,557,711 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01249 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 14–15, 17–21, and 27–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–13, 16, and 26 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“A. Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“agree that “Yegoshin’s phone is configured to switch between cellular and IP communication modes, and also ‘capable of taking some calls via cellular path while receiving other calls via IP path’” but that does not lead to the conclusion, or support, that “in order to receive calls on both cellular network and WLAN simultaneously or to switch between two networks, the phone includes multiplexing of the signals communicated on two network paths.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 126 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:18–22, 5:33–65), 127 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:33–65; Ex. 1006, 1:6:12, 1:54–60, 3:53–61). The declarant’s citations to the record also do not support that Yegoshin’s “phone includes multiplexing of the signals communicated on two network paths.” Ex. 1004, 3:18–22, 5:33–65; Ex. 1006, 1:6:12, 1:54–60, 3:53–61.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 9,019,946 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,019,946 - PTAB · Jan 17, 2024 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons provided below, and based on the record as it now stands, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. B.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenMixed
“Regarding the claimed “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” Petitioner asserts that “Alden’s system can ‘provide illumination to independently controlled segments [e.g., ‘subsections’] each operable within a range of intensities between the high and the low beam state” and that Alden’s “intensities in between high beam and low beam (e.g., medium) are the claimed ‘predefined threshold value’ which the low beam would be below and the high beam would be above.” Pet. 25. We tend to disagree with this analysis, as it does not appear that a “range of intensities” is a “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” if those terms are given their ordinary meaning. We thus conclude that, on this record at least, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Alden anticipates these claims. Regarding obviousness in view of Alden alone, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has “failed to establish or demonstrate multiple elements that are required to support an obviousness conclusion, including explaining how Alden must be modified (i.e., identifying the differences between the claimed invention and Alden) and explaining why a POSA would be motivated to so modify Alden (i.e., providing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion).” Prelim. Resp. 37. We agree. It does not appear that Petitioner has provided any basis on which to account for differences between Alden and the challenged claims based on Alden’s disclosures alone.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (Prelim. Resp. 7), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not seek construction of any claim terms and asserts that “all claim terms [discussed in the Petition] are given [their] ordinary and customary meaning.” Petition 8. Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary” at this time because its “arguments for denial do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” Prelim. Resp. 7. There being no present dispute about the meaning of any claim term, we find that no express claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues addressed in this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,894,503 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2022-01097 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Sourcefire did not disclose the claimed responsive updating of an existing packet flow log entry.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not address this issue, and neither side argues that it might affect the patentability analysis or otherwise change the outcome. Thus, as 2 Sourcefire 3D System User Guide, Ver. 4.10, Mar. 16, 2011 (Ex. 1004). 3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0207809 A1 (Ex. 1029). we did at institution, we apply Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan, as we find it consistent with the ’917 patent and the asserted prior art. B.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“1. Threat Identifier and Threat Indicator Patent Owner identifies two terms that were construed in the ITC investigation involving the ’917 patent based on constructions agreed upon by the parties. PO Resp. 9. First, the parties in the ITC investigation agreed that “threat identifier” means “information that identifies one or more network threats.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 2004, 3). Second, the parties further agreed that “threat indicator” means “information that indicates a resource associated with a network threat,” “[f]or example, network addresses, ports, FQDNs, URLs, URIs, the type of threat, geographic information, anonymous proxies, actors, or the like.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 2004, 3). Patent Owner asserts that these constructions should be used in this proceeding. Id. at 12. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions, and we adopt them.4” slip op. at 12
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“Before we get to claim construction, we exclude Ex. 2018 as untimely because Patent Owner had the testimony before it filed the Response and was plainly aware of it, as it was alluded to in the Response. See PO Resp. 10; Mot. to Exclude Opp. 2 (admitting that the trial finished before the Response was filed and that Patent Owner filed other testimony excerpts with the Response). However, the exclusion is of little consequence because we find that the testimony would be devoid of probative value. Dr. Rubin is not a fact witness and has not been offered as an expert in this case. Patent Owner cites the testimony in an effort to show that Petitioner is taking inconsistent positions, but we fail to see how Petitioner’s conduct bears on the meaning of “flow” in the ’917 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner
“Before we get to claim construction, we exclude Ex. 2018 as untimely because Patent Owner had the testimony before it filed the Response and was plainly aware of it, as it was alluded to in the Response. See PO Resp. 10; Mot. to Exclude Opp. 2 (admitting that the trial finished before the Response was filed and that Patent Owner filed other testimony excerpts with the Response). However, the exclusion is of little consequence because we find that the testimony would be devoid of probative value. Dr. Rubin is not a fact witness and has not been offered as an expert in this case. Patent Owner cites the testimony in an effort to show that Petitioner is taking inconsistent positions, but we fail to see how Petitioner’s conduct bears on the meaning of “flow” in the ’917 patent.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,193,917 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,193,917 - Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00974 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6–9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 22–25, 27, 28, 32, and 36–38 are unpatentable as obvious over Hwang and McFarland.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–40). Patent Owner has not proposed an alternative, and, having reviewed the arguments and evidence in the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, as we did in the Institution Decision, finding it consistent with the ’641 patent and the asserted prior art. C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “radio network information” in dependent claims 9, 14, and 28. See Pet. 7. Patent Owner has not proposed a specific construction for any claim term and has not disputed Petitioner’s proposed construction for “radio network information.” In view of the analysis below, we determine that we need not expressly construe “radio network information,” and that no other claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“Figure from Page 17 of the Akl Supplemental Declaration We find it unclear from this figure and the associated explanation in the Declaration (see Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 30–32) how the map burst and traffic burst blocks in green and blue factor in, because they cannot be received by the 2.5 MHz device. Dr. Akl testified that “McFarland teaches that necessary messages, e.g., including broadcast messages, or any other messages that need to be received by multiple nodes, ‘must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive,’ that is, the base mode (e.g., the core-band).” Ex. 1038 ¶ 31 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 60). He then states that one “would understand that because Hwang’s AAS_MAP_Burst_Location_IE contains system information and an index of where the MAP bursts are going to be, it is a message that needs to be received by multiple nodes, and thus is a necessary message that must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive.” Id. It does not appear, however, that the blue and green blocks could be part of “broadcast messages” intended for a 2.5 MHz mobile station because they cannot be received by that mobile station. We thus do not agree that McFarland would suggest including map burst blocks in the 2.5 MHz band because they are “broadcast messages.” We also fail to see why the map burst locations would need to be received by multiple nodes, as that seems to be data that is tailored to the mobile device with which the base station is communicating.7 However, we do find it readily apparent that if the base station and the mobile station have determined to communicate using a particular bandwidth, as contemplated by the combination presented in the Petition, the map bursts necessarily would be included in that bandwidth in order for the communication scheme to be successful. The mobile station would need to” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,953,641 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,953,641 - PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01248 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all presented grounds for claims 1–21 and 23–30, finding a reasonable likelihood of proving at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We accordingly institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 and 23–30 of the ’653 patent on all presented challenges. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). B.” slip op. at 4
- BurdenMixed
“For the reasons above, based on the present record, Petitioner’s arguments do not show adequately that Yegoshin would have been understood to have multiplexed signals, or that Bernard “includes or operates as a multiplexer for combining the data packets” (Pet. 37). Because Petitioner does not sufficiently show multiplexed signals in any of the asserted references, Petitioner does not provide enough argument and evidence that its proposed combination of Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, and Bernard would have “a single interface comprised of multiplexed signals from the plurality of wireless transmit and receive components,” as required by claim 1. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prove claim 1 unpatentable over the combination of Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström, and Bernard. For the same reasons, we find that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prove dependent claims 2–13 unpatentable over the combination. However, because claim 1 will remain in the proceeding under SAS, we also provide our preliminary views on the dependent claims.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Claim Construction Petitioner states that “no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not propose an interpretation for any term but, as discussed below in Section II.D, argues that Petitioner should have disclosed and applied the claim constructions it has advanced in related litigation. At this preliminary stage, we determine that the record does not require use to resolve any claim construction dispute to decide whether or not to institute. 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)). C.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill and does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’653 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. B.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,842,653 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01152 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, 19, and 20 over Jungck and Bhatia; claims 4, 11, and 18 over Jungck, Bhatia, and RFC 2003.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of professional experience,” with a lack of work experience being remedied by additional education and vice versa. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 25). Patent Owner takes a position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art that appears to be analogous to that taken by Petitioner. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 28-32). We continue to find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by 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), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See Dec. 11–12.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelMixed
“Issue preclusion [i.e., collateral estoppel] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377 (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S. Ct. 1501, 28 L.Ed. 2d 788 (1971) (finding collateral estoppel applies to a patentee who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of a patent in a prior federal case.)). With respect to the language of the Challenged Claims, we continue to agree with Patent Owner on the issues of collateral estoppel. As Patent Owner points out, the prior determinations were made with respect to a different claim construction standard. Additionally, per the analysis discussed below and Patent Owner’s discussion of the claims, we determine that the claims of the instant ’246 Patent and those recited in the ’077 and the ’205 patents are similar in scope, but the recitations are different such that the claims must be presumed to have differing scopes. Therefore, we evaluate the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the grounds of unpatentability render the challenged claims unpatentable, rather than assuming that Patent Owner is generally estopped from asserting patentability of the Challenged Claims over previously presented art. To the extent that Patent Owner raises previously decided issues, however, we determine collateral estoppel to apply to such arguments. For example, the combination of Jungck and Bhatia was previously before the Board, such that if Patent Owner were to assert that there could be no motivation to combine their teachings, generally, Patent Owner would likely be estopped because it could or did raise such issues without success. slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“Upon first consideration in our Decision on Institution, Patent Owner’s assertion regarding receiving rule sets with more than one network address made sense. Upon further consideration, however, we determine that it is an overly limiting interpretation of the claim language to require that the rule sets received be the same rule sets that are executed. Claim 1, for example, uses “comprising” language, such that its method may include more than just the steps listed, and there is no explicit recitation in the claim that requires the executed rule sets to be exactly as those received in a separate step. In contrast, claim 1 makes it explicit and clear, for example, that “the second time being after the first time, the third time being after the second time,” such that the executing steps must be performed in a certain sequence. We ascertain no such limitation for the rule sets, where an initial recitation of “a first rule set,” could have been followed with “of the received plurality of rule sets,” for example, to provide greater clarity. Without that further limitation, we presume that the scope of the plain language of the claim is greater, such that the executed rule sets need not necessarily be the same as the received plurality of rule sets. In addition, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that reading the claims as Petitioner suggests would leave no other reference to the “plurality of rule sets” in the independent claims and provide no other apparent source for the “executed” rule sets. Claim 1, for example, is broad enough to allow for the receipt of multiple rule sets, over time, such that a full complement of rule sets can be achieved for the network security device. Similarly, the “comprising” language of claim 1 would allow for the network security device to pick and choose, or create, rule sets that would satisfy the criteria for the first, second and third rule sets to be executed. To determine otherwise would be to overly limit the system that would fall within the scope of the challenged claims. Patent Owner’s interpretation is a subset of the possible formulations of a system meeting the requirements of the claim. Construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention cannot require that limitations not found in the claims themselves, or the specification, limit the claims from their natural scope. In addition, we consider the proper construction of the instant claims in the context of the specification and the knowledge of those of skill in the art, and not in the context of other prior art references proffered in this proceeding. Accordingly, we no longer conclude that the independent claims require the receipt of “a plurality of rule sets,” by the at least one network security device, such that those received sets must have any specific numbers of network addresses, where the network address criteria apply only to the rule sets being executed. Because of this, we determine no explicit limitation on the rule sets received by the network security device or computing system, other than that they provide some network protection, and determine that the number of network addresses included with specific rule sets applies to the rule sets being executed, rather than to the plurality of rule sets received.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Owner’s assertion regarding receiving rule sets with more than one network address made sense. Upon further consideration, however, we determine that it is an overly limiting interpretation of the claim language to require that the rule sets received be the same rule sets that are executed. Claim 1, for example, uses “comprising” language, such that its method may include more than just the steps listed, and there is no explicit recitation in the claim that requires the executed rule sets to be exactly as those received in a separate step. In contrast, claim 1 makes it explicit and clear, for example, that “the second time being after the first time, the third time being after the second time,” such that the executing steps must be performed in a certain sequence. We ascertain no such limitation for the rule sets, where an initial recitation of “a first rule set,” could have been followed with “of the received plurality of rule sets,” for example, to provide greater clarity. Without that further limitation, we presume that the scope of the plain language of the claim is greater, such that the executed rule sets need not necessarily be the same as the received plurality of rule sets. In addition, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that reading the claims as Petitioner suggests would leave no other reference to the “plurality of rule sets” in the independent claims and provide no other apparent source for the “executed” rule sets. Claim 1, for example, is broad enough to allow for the receipt of multiple rule sets, over time, such that a full complement of rule sets can be achieved for the network security device. Similarly, the “comprising” language of claim 1 would allow for the network security device to pick and choose, or create, rule sets that would satisfy the criteria for the first, second and third rule sets to be executed. To determine otherwise would be to overly limit the system that would fall within the scope of the challenged claims. Patent Owner’s interpretation is a subset of the possible formulations of a system meeting the requirements of the claim. Construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention cannot require that limitations not found in the claims themselves, or the specification, limit the claims from their natural scope. In addition, we consider the proper construction of the instant claims in the context of the specification and the knowledge of those of skill in the art, and not in the context of other prior art references proffered in this proceeding. Accordingly, we no longer conclude that the independent claims require the receipt of “a plurality of rule sets,” by the at least one network security device, such that those received sets must have any specific numbers of network addresses, where the network address criteria apply only to the rule sets being executed. Because of this, we determine no explicit limitation on the rule sets received by the network security device or computing system, other than that they provide some network protection, and determine that the number of network addresses included with specific rule sets applies to the rule sets being executed, rather than to the plurality of rule sets received.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 10,091,246 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,091,246
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.