• Leica Microsystems Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of MichiganNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01165 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–26 were not proven unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish obviousness based on the Folestad combinations or Marriott combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “known to those skilled in the art that it is not even described by the patent references” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 116). See TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”).9 To the contrary, each of the secondary references describes sample preparation and testing procedures in detail, reflecting expert-level knowledge and expert-level considerations that guided the experiments. Petitioner’s proposed use of Folestad’s system to analyze the samples of Laporte, Marriott, or Wittmershaus—each of which describes a complete system for detecting and measuring the fluorescence relevant to the samples at issue—essentially discounts the references’ teachings in favor of Folestad’s teachings, which does not even mention fluorescence. Excessive hindsight guides that proposal, not the generalized “desire to examine fluorescence from multiple fluorophores and engage in time-resolved detection of such fluorescence” (Pet. 22–23).” slip op. at 19

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on the complete record, we determine the weight of the evidence does not sufficiently support Petitioner’s arguments that the challenged claims would have been obvious based on the combination of Folestad and the secondary references. As Petitioner acknowledges, Folestad does not address fluorescence. Pet. 25. In fact, Folestad does not teach or even suggest studying a sample having fluorophores, much less a sample having multiple fluorophores. Pet. 25 (“Folestad does not mention that [its] sample has a plurality of fluorophores, or that [its] system is specifically intended for fluorescence detection.”); Ex. 2017 ¶ 35.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “consistent with Petitioner’s arguments that the proposed combinations of the prior art amount to simple substitutions, that the combinations would have been obvious to try, or that replacing Folestad’s pharmaceuticals with a live mouse would have been merely a new use for an old system. See Pet. 22– 24. We find no evidentiary support from Dr. Knox’s conclusory suggestion known to those skilled in the art that it is not even described by the patent references” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 116). See TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”).9 To the contrary, each of the secondary references describes sample preparation and testing procedures in detail, reflecting expert-level knowledge and expert-level considerations that guided the experiments. Petitioner’s proposed use of Folestad’s system to analyze the samples of Laporte, Marriott, or Wittmershaus—each of which describes a complete system for detecting and measuring the fluorescence relevant to the samples at issue—essentially discounts the references’ teachings in favor of Folestad’s teachings, which does not even mention fluorescence. Excessive hindsight guides that proposal, not the generalized “desire to examine fluorescence from multiple fluorophores and engage in time-resolved detection of such fluorescence” (Pet. 22–23). Nor does the “availability and cost of laboratory equipment” support Petitioner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill would have selected Folestad’s system (instead of Laporte’s, Marriott’s, or Wittmershaus’s) to “repurpose” Folestad’s system for the study of fluorescence. Pet. 22; Reply 6. First, the record lacks adequate evidence of the equipment available to a person of ordinary skill, and second, our analysis turns on the references’ teachings, not on a hypothetical situation in which a person of ordinary skill wants to study fluorescence and happens to have the “$300,000-$500,000” of equipment on hand to “repurpose” Folestad’s 9 Dr. Knox’s testimony does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based and, therefore, is entitled to little or no weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Petitioner’s arguments reflect excessive hindsight in the suggestion that a person of ordinary skill would have selected Folestad’s supercontinuum white light laser and streak camera to perform the experiments taught by the secondary references, with essentially no evidence that Folestad’s system would have provided any improvement or benefit. 2. Conclusion Regarding Folestad-Based Grounds Based on the Petition and the evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence to establish that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Folestad with Laporte, Marriott, or Wittmershaus to arrive at the inventions of independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 10, and 19, nor dependent claims 2–9, 11–18, and 20–26, are unpatentable.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner

    “known to those skilled in the art that it is not even described by the patent references” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 116). See TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”).9 To the contrary, each of the secondary references describes sample preparation and testing procedures in detail, reflecting expert-level knowledge and expert-level considerations that guided the experiments. Petitioner’s proposed use of Folestad’s system to analyze the samples of Laporte, Marriott, or Wittmershaus—each of which describes a complete system for detecting and measuring the fluorescence relevant to the samples at issue—essentially discounts the references’ teachings in favor of Folestad’s teachings, which does not even mention fluorescence. Excessive hindsight guides that proposal, not the generalized “desire to examine fluorescence from multiple fluorophores and engage in time-resolved detection of such fluorescence” (Pet. 22–23). Nor does the “availability and cost of laboratory equipment” support Petitioner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill would have selected Folestad’s system (instead of Laporte’s, Marriott’s, or Wittmershaus’s) to “repurpose” Folestad’s system for the study of fluorescence. Pet. 22; Reply 6. First, the record lacks adequate evidence of the equipment available to a person of ordinary skill, and second, our analysis turns on the references’ teachings, not on a hypothetical situation in which a person of ordinary skill wants to study fluorescence and happens to have the “$300,000-$500,000” of equipment on hand to “repurpose” Folestad’s 9 Dr. Knox’s testimony does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based and, therefore, is entitled to little or no weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Petitioner’s arguments reflect excessive hindsight in the suggestion that a person of ordinary skill would have selected Folestad’s supercontinuum white light laser and streak camera to perform the experiments taught by the secondary references, with essentially no evidence that Folestad’s system would have provided any improvement or benefit.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,277,169 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,277,169
• Hulu, LLC / Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00647 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable over Pyle and Marusi or Lewis and Marusi because each ground failed to establish a required claim limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 8–9 (citing 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)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in adaptive streaming and content management” or “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in adaptive streaming or content management” and that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” See Inst. Dec. 7–9 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 9

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

    “the case law makes clear that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’” unless an “extremely limited” exception applies. See Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356; Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising,” meaning it is open-ended, and, therefore, the usual meaning of “a” as “one or more” would have been expected absent an extremely limited exception. In considering whether an exception applies, our review of the ’720 patent fails to indicate that the patentee intended the phrase to mean anything other than the usual meaning of “one or more.” Patent Owner asserts that “‘[t]he plain language of the claim clearly indicates only a single [list] is used’ to list multiple assets” and quotes two portions of the Specification, which state “a list of assets that satisfies criteria” and “a list of assets to which a . . . device is granted access.” PO Sur-reply 15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:60–67) (citing Ex. 1001, 2:23–34, 3:1–5, 4:21–23, 17:59–66). Although claim 1 of the ’720 patent recites “assets” in the plural, we fail to see how that conveys that the term “a” would have been understood as limited to “one.” Notably, neither party has identified any inconsistency, in the claims or other portions of the Specification (including the portions quoted and/or cited by Patent Owner), resulting from construing “a” as “one or more.” And, we find that there is no reason why the claims could not be met under the construction of “a” as “one or more.” Thus, we find that the ’720 patent does not “evince [ ] a clear intent to limit a or an to one.” See Convolve, 812 F.3d at 1321 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we construe the term “a” in “a list of assets” as “one or more” such that the phrase “a list of assets” means “one or more list of assets.” Considering next the phrase “the list of assets” recited in limitation 1[d], the parties do not dispute that the use of the term “the” means that “the list of assets” refers back to the one or more list of assets retrieved in limitation 1[c] and discussed above. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. Similarly, the parties do not dispute that the phrase “the filtered list of assets,” recited in limitation 1[e], refers back to the list of assets resulting from the filtering step of limitation 1[d]. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. We agree with the parties that each of these phrases refers back to the previous instance of the recited terms.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Fundamentally, Petitioner fails to provide any reason in the Petition as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to retrieve a list of assets based on Lewis. Instead of providing a reason as to why retrieving a list of assets would have been obvious, Petitioner points to a result achieved by Lewis—generating a dynamic manifest file that contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. In the context before us, pointing to a result to allege that a step in a process leading to the result would have been obvious is insufficient without also providing a reason with rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). Here, Petitioner relies upon the result of Lewis’s process—generating a dynamic manifest file containing a list of URLs—as the only basis as to why a previous step in the claim would have been obvious without providing any reason why the achieved result means the previous step would have been obvious. Further, although Petitioner cites to Dr. Reader’s declaration (Ex. 1003 ¶ 233), Dr. Reader’s testimony does not provide any further explanation or reason as to why this aspect of limitation 1[c] would have been obvious.11 Rather, the Petition’s 11 To the extent Petitioner relies upon its discussion of the combined teachings of Lewis and Marusi as set forth at the beginning of Petitioner’s discussion of this ground (see Pet. 54–57), that portion of the Petition does not provide an additional reason why retrieving a list of assets as recited in discussion appears to be exactly the same as Dr. Reader’s testimony on this point. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets in light of Lewis is not supported sufficiently on the record before us.” slip op. at 46

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)New argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner contends that “[c]ontrary to [Patent Owner’s] claim that Lewis does not teach a list and that there was no reason to modify Lewis’ system ([PO Resp.] 30–32), the Petition and Dr. Reader clearly explain why lists and database operations would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 237–239). Petitioner reiterates the position asserted in the Petition—that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets because Lewis teaches that a dynamic manifest file contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. Id. Petitioner also contends that “Lewis itself explains that it was well-known that manifest files contain a list of media assets to be played.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 20 (noting that “Manifest Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 79). In its Reply, Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s assertion by pointing to stored video segments 375 as assets, not just processed video segments 315a–c. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 230–231). In the Petition, Petitioner did not assert or rely upon stored video segments 375 as teaching the recited “assets” or “list of assets”; rather, Petitioner relied upon processed video segments 315a–c. See Pet. 62. Petitioner’s attempt to assert, for the first time, in its Reply that processed video segments 375 also teach the recited “assets” is an improper reply argument. See, e.g., Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“Generally, a reply . . . may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. . . . ‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing. . . . Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability . . . of an original . . . claim . . . .”); see PO Sur-reply 16–18 (discussing Petitioner’s new argument). Petitioner’s attempt to (1) rely upon stored video segments 375 to teach the recited assets and (2) assert that Lewis teaches, as opposed to rendering obvious, retrieving a list of assets are both new arguments that are inappropriately raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply and, therefore, we disregard them. file 257 includes entries 258a through 258f”), Fig. 2 (noting that Figure 2 shows entries pointing to video segments)).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,270,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,270,720
• Netflix Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00646 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable because Kaku was not established as analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot shown unpatentableNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The field of endeavor test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–27. A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for three claim terms, including the term “trick play functionality.” Pet. 22–23. Patent Owner argues for construction of the related claim term “the first and second indexes enabling trick play functionality.” See PO Resp. 41–49. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of those claim terms because construction of the proposed terms does not impact our determination that Petitioner has not shown that one of the prior art references is analogous to the claimed invention. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached

    “Under the particular circumstances in this case, we need not assess the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. As discussed above, we have determined that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance that Kaku is analogous prior art to the ’792 patent and do not reach Petitioner’s arguments on the motivation to combine Kaku with Zetts or Seo. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 34

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “As discussed above (supra § III.E.4.a), Petitioner’s papers fail to link Dr. Reader’s declaration testimony on the level of ordinary skill in the art to the analogous art inquiry and fail to identify a field of endeavor for the ’792 patent. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s demonstrative slide 53 presents improper new arguments that have not been previously made. See Paper 38, 2 (“The parties may only rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments that have been previously made in the submitted papers. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the hearing.”), 5 (“Demonstratives are not a mechanism for making new arguments.”). We therefore sustain Patent Owner’s objections. We note, however, that demonstratives are not evidence. See id. at 5 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the hearing are not evidence, nor will they be relied upon as evidence. Rather, demonstratives are visual aids to a party’s oral presentation regarding arguments and evidence previously presented and discussed in the papers”); CTPG 84 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the final hearing are aids to oral argument and not evidence.”). In this Final Written Decision, we rely solely on the arguments properly presented in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record, not on the demonstratives.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,472,792 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,472,792
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2021 · IPR2020-00511 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–12, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under the three § 103 grounds because the combinations did not establish the encrypted-frame limitation.

  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 electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video encryption and cryptography or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video encryption and cryptography.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67). Patent Owner does not address, expressly, the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. See generally PO Resp. Dr. Nielson, however, applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in his Declaration (Ex. 2009 ¶ 34) and does not indicate that he does otherwise in his Second Declaration (see generally Ex. 2024). In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 10 (citing 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)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video encryption and cryptography or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video encryption and cryptography.” See Inst. Dec. 9–10 (finding the same).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner contends that “the challenged claims are invalid under their plain and ordinary (‘P&O’) meaning.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner raised the meaning of two claim terms—“user encryption key” and “content encryption key.” Prelim. Resp. 40–44, 46–48. In the Institution Decision, we addressed each term to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy presented, and we found, in each instance, that Petitioner’s mapping of the prior art to these limitations of the claims was sufficient on the record presented at the time. See Inst. Dec. 12– 15 (discussing the construction of the terms), 22–28 (discussing limitation 1[a], which includes “user encryption key”), 28–31 (discussing limitation 1[b], which includes “content encryption key”). In particular, on the preliminary record, we found that “Chen’s master key Kw teaches the recited ‘user encryption key’” (id. at 28) and “Chen’s work key Kw teaches the recited ‘content encryption key’” (id. at 30). In the Response, Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any claim term or contest our preliminary findings regarding limitations 1[a] and 1[b]. See generally PO Resp. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary determinations regarding the meaning of the recited “user encryption key” and “content encryption key.” Dec. 12–15. Additionally, we need not construe other claim terms to resolve the present controversy before us.6” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “techniques, and standards in the industry regarding the same in an attempt to explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Chen at the time of the ’920 patent. As discussed herein, the weight of the evidence is very closely balanced. Fundamentally, however, it is Petitioner’s burden to establish how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Chen and the combined teachings of Chen and Grab-333. And, as we find herein based on the full record developed during trial, Petitioner does not establish that the combined teachings of Chen and Grab-333 would have met limitation 1[c]. Below, we walk through the parties’ arguments and evidence, starting with the Petition, and then we discuss our findings regarding Chen in light of the full trial record.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “To begin, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) specifies, in relevant part, that “[a] sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The Consolidated TPG repeats the above-quoted language of the rule and also explains that [s]ur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony. As noted above, a sur-reply may address the institution decision if necessary to respond to the petitioner’s reply. This sur-reply practice essentially replaces the previous practice of filing observations on cross-examination testimony. Consolidated TPG at 73–74. Accordingly, Rule 42.23(b) provides a blanket prohibition on a patentee filing exhibits with a sur-reply, as Patent Owner has done here.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 9,184,920 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,184,920
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2021 · IPR2019-01379 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 17 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Huang because Petitioner did not establish an adequate motivation to combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in image and/or video processing.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 42). Patent Owner neither comments on that proposal, nor proposes an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. 5 The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art, we apply it for purposes of this Decision. In our view, moreover, the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art at the time of the invention).” slip op. at 9

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

    “00052, which also involves the ’651 patent, the Board construed the term “level of detail” as “level of change of visual elements across adjacent pixels,” and that the same construction should apply here. PO Resp. 58–60 (citing IPR2020-00052, Paper 42). Petitioner does not propose a construction for that term, but argues that “the combined Kim and Huang teachings would determine the level of detail for adjacent pixels under Patent Owner’s ‘adjacent pixels’ construction.” Pet. Reply 5–11. Because our ultimate decision does not rest on the construction of that claim term, we do not construe the term in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). As part of our obviousness analysis, we address additional claim construction arguments regarding the “determining” limitation. See infra § III.E.1.a.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that these exhibits represent expressions of opinion of unnamed users that Patent Owner relies on to show cotemporaneous praise existed. These exhibits are cited in the Hanson Declaration only as evidence of industry praise, i.e., to support testimony based on his personal knowledge. See Ex. 2045 ¶ 51. And although Mr. Hanson quotes statements from these exhibits in his declaration, their relevance lies in that they allegedly reflect praise for DivX’s deblocking method. For example, the statement by user “temperance”—that Petitioner objects to as being relied on for the truth of the matter asserted (Paper 46, 1– 2)—is offered to show that “[t]here was plenty of healthy debate on the boards about the quality of the new version of the codec,” and “many commenters specifically praised the deblocking.” See Ex. 2045 ¶ 46. Moreover, it is clear that these are merely opinions of online users, not factual assertions. See id. (quoting temperance: “IMHO, DivX 6 deblocking is better (for metrics and eyes) than xvid’s”) (emphasis added); see Sonos, slip op. at 7 (separating admissible expressions of opinions that constitute praise from bare factual assertions). Other statements that Petitioner objects to (Paper 46, 2) are similarly opinions of online users, not factual assertions that Patent Owner relies upon for the truth of the matter stated therein. We are therefore not persuaded that Exhibits 2018–2030 and 2032–2033 contain inadmissible hearsay.11 See Cisco Sys., Paper 41 at 50–51 (allowing exhibits cited only as evidence of industry praise); Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., IPR2018-00255, 2020 WL 2595492, at *2 (PTAB May 21, 2020) (citing Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., 13-CV-00457-JST, 2014 WL 12644295, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014)).” slip op. at 55

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not detail Petitioner’s newly proposed interpretation of this claim limitation. See Pet. 29–36 (arguing only that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kim determines the level of detail for a region comprising an 8 x 8 block of pixels of a reconstructed video frame). On the contrary, the Petition argued: [T]he prior art cited in this Petition teaches and suggests exactly what is claimed and what allegedly distinguished the claims from Kim II: determining the level of detail of a region that includes pixels from multiple rows and multiple columns that encompass pixels immediately adjacent to at least two sides of the block boundary, and selecting a filter to apply.” Pet. 18 (emphasis added).6 Under these circumstances, we consider Petitioner’s new argument waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ 6 Petitioner refers to a different prior art reference, U.S. Patent No. 6,983,079, cited by the examiner during the prosecution of the ’651 patent, as Kim II. the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,139,651 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,139,651
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01661 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 15, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed power gain and power loss relationship used to determine whether to power down.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Raghunathan, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’014 patent “would have had at least an M.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience), and would have three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 57–58). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal with a modification to the level of education based on Patent Owner’s proposal in its Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 7 (citing Prelim. Resp. 5). Specifically, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Id. Neither party argues during trial that our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. See PO Resp. 2–3. See generally Pet. Reply. Because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We need only construe claim terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In this proceeding, neither party proposes a formal construction for any term. See Pet. 23; PO Resp. 3. We find it unnecessary to construe expressly any claim terms to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence on the complete record now before us, we find Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Takahashi’s “predetermined value” to be an estimated power gain. Patent Owner, with the support of Dr. Wolfe’s credible testimony, persuasively argues that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is a previous value of the cache-miss rate. Petitioner, on the other hand, does not point to anything in Takahashi that describes the “predetermined value” as an estimated power gain, nor does Petitioner cite any testimony from Dr. Raghunathan in support of its position other than a portion of his declaration that is substantially the same as the discussion in the Petition. See Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 80); see also Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 72– 80 (testimony substantially the same as pages 29–34 of the Petition). Without any suggestion in Takahashi that the “predetermined value” relates to an estimated power gain, Takahashi’s stated goal of reducing power consumption is not sufficient to show that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is representative of an estimated power gain. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that Takahashi teaches or suggests an estimated power gain or determining whether to power down a portion of a device component in response to a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss, as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Takahashi.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We focus on one argument we find particularly persuasive—that Hu does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to “determin[e] whether to power down” a cache or a portion of a cache, as required by claim 1, even if the L2Access:leak ratio can be considered a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss. See PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-reply 16–18. In its Reply, Petitioner alleges that “Hu explicitly discloses using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine when to power down the L1 cache.” Pet. Reply 16 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98). Petitioner, however, does not support this proposition by quoting or citing specific language in Hu, relying only on Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration, which provides substantially the same discussion as the Petition. Compare Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98, with Pet. 39–40. We agree with Patent Owner that the portion of Hu cited in the Petition and Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down the L1 cache, as Petitioner contends. See PO Sur-reply 16–18; Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97– 99. Rather, Hu discloses determining values of the normalized cache leakage energy for different decay intervals at four values of the L2Access:leak ratio—5, 10, 20, and 100. Ex. 1104, 175–76; see PO Sur-reply 17. Hu uses these assumed values of the L2Access:leak ratio as inputs to generate simulation data, not to determine whether to power down a cache or portion of a cache. Ex. 1104, 175, see PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-Reply 15–16. Petitioner argues that Hu teaches that the higher the L2Access:leak ratio, the longer the system should wait before powering down the cache. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 16–17. Hu, however, does not expressly compare the effect of different L2Access:leak ratios other than to state that when the L2Access:leak ratio is 100, a small decay interval is detrimental to performance and power. Ex. 1104, 175. As Patent Owner correctly asserts, Hu does not describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine an appropriate decay interval, nor does Hu describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down a portion of a cache. See PO Sur-Reply 17–18.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,020,014 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,020,014
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2020 · IPR2018-01040 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach or support adding the separately claimed third voltage reference.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that we should not address the patentability of claim 9 in this Decision. See PO Resp. 63–64. Rather, following Federal Circuit case law, we treat claim 9 as if it never existed. See Gunn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.”). Consistent with other Board decisions in which some, but not all, challenged claims have been disclaimed after institution, we address the patentability only of the remaining claims. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., IPR2018-00673, Paper 48 at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2019) (Final Written Decision); Yamaha Golf Car, Paper 63 at 3; Baker Hughes, Paper 74 at 6, 11–12. We also agree with Patent Owner that we should not enter adverse judgment as to claim 9. See PO Sur-reply 26–27. Arthrex, the case relied on by Petitioner, does not mandate a different outcome. By its terms, 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) permits disclaimer to be construed as a request for adverse action when there are “no remaining claim[s] in the trial.” That was the situation in Arthrex. 880 F.3d at 1347 (“Arthrex, Inc. disclaimed all claims that were the subject of the petition.”). Here, in contrast, several claims remain in the trial. Furthermore, Arthrex does not support Petitioner’s patent are disclaimed.” Pet. Reply 27. The Arthrex language quoted by Petitioner compares disclaimer of an “entire patent” under § 42.73(b)(1) with disclaimer of “some of the claims” of the patent (i.e., fewer than all claims in the patent but all challenged claims so there are no remaining claims in the trial) under § 42.73(b)(2). 880 F.3d at 1350. Neither situation is present here when only one claim (claim 9) has been disclaimed and several challenged claims (claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13) remain in the trial.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’207 patent “would have had at least a[n] M.S. degree in electrical engineering and would have at least two years of experience with circuit design.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the asserted prior art and adopted Petitioner’s position, which Patent Owner did not oppose in the Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Ipek, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Ipek, however, states that “[f]or purposes of the subject IPR proceedings, I have been asked to employ [Petitioner’s proposed] standard of a person of ordinary skill, but I do not offer the opinion that it is the correct standard.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 19. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience with circuit design. See Inst. Dec. 14; Pet. 17.” slip op. at 18

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

    “the complete record developed during this inter partes review, we again conclude that the “third voltage reference” must be separate from the “second voltage reference.” We begin with the language of claim 1, which recites a first voltage reference, a second voltage reference, and a third voltage reference as separate elements.7 “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The terms “first,” “second,” and “third” are terms used to distinguish separate elements of a claim. See Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation.”). Although Gillette and 3M address whether such terms impose a numerical or serial limitation, they nevertheless support Patent Owner’s position that enumerated elements typically are not construed to be the same element. See Sur-reply 11–12. Other cases cited by Patent Owner also support its position. See id. at 12 (citing Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 935–39 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (construing “first” and “second” disks as separate and discrete disks); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1405) (Fed. Cir. 1996)” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art would have sought to reduce power consumption in Takahashi to address the well-known problem of current leakage, and that providing a separate voltage reference for transistor 223 in Takahashi’s Figure 15 (i.e., a third voltage reference) would have achieved that goal. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). But the only evidence Petitioner relies on for adding the proposed third voltage reference is the testimony of Dr. Stojanovic. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). Without any additional supporting evidence, Dr. Stojanovic’s testimony is insufficient to supply the missing “third voltage reference,” which is a key limitation of claim 1. See K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 36 (Nov. 2019)9 (“[I]n an obviousness analysis, conclusory assertions from a third party about general knowledge in the art cannot, without supporting evidence of record, supply a limitation that is not evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art. . . . In other words, expert testimony may explain ‘patents and publications,’ but is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.” (citing K/S Himpp, 751 F.3d at 1365)); see also Inst. Dec. 30–31 (reaching the same conclusion on the preliminary record). Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,706,207 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,706,207
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Ibex PT Holdings Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2019 · IPR2018-00012 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over WD4-v2, Lin, and Zhou II because Petitioner failed to establish that Zhou II was a publicly accessible printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “The determination of whether a document is a printed publication involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. See Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380; In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A document is considered a printed publication if it has been “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence [could] locate it.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activation Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2018); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Indexing a reference is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but it is one among various factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 774 (stating “where indexing is concerned, . . . the ultimate question is whether the reference was available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it”).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that a person interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located Zhou II on the JCT-VC website, and thus, has not shown that Zhou II was publicly accessible by virtue of its uploading onto the JCT-VC website.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent thereof, and at least three to four years of experience in the relevant field, which includes video coding technology, or an M.S. degree in electrical engineering and at least two to three years of experience with video coding technology. More education can supplement practical experience. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–22). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had credentials that “reflect a practical understanding of the design considerations and challenges associated with the video coding technology at issue in the ’855 patent,” such as “an engineering degree and three or more years of actual industry experience.” PO Resp. 20. The parties’ proposals do not differ in any significant way. We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is supported explicitly by the testimony of Mr. Bross and is commensurate with the level of ordinary skill as reflected in the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner, in its Reply, presents evidence and argument for the first time that Zhou II was disseminated at the sixth JCT-VC meeting in Torino in July, 2011 because it was “presented and discussed” during the meeting. Reply 16–17 (citing Ex. 1057, 23, 97) (emphasis added). This argument is an entirely new theory of public accessibility and exceeds the proper scope of a reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner’s response.”).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,654,855 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,654,855
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Kamatani Cloud, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 19, 2018 · IPR2017-01370 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 5, 7–13, 15–18, 21, 23–28, 30–32, 34, 35, and 38–41 not shown unpatentable under the three § 103 grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “d) Conclusion—“detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured” Based on the entire trial record before us, for the reasons given, we are persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the ’940 Patent Specification. See Ex. 1001, 5:40–54, 6:3–13, 7:1–4, Figs. 3, 4. Accordingly we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of detecting if data are “capable of being [measured/processed]” or “can be processed” is detecting “if any instrument has the functional ability to measure measurement data,” as proposed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 14– 21.15 We determine no further express construction is necessary for the detecting recitations in the independent claims.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or computer engineering, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in remote monitoring and control systems. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 16). At the preliminary stage, Patent Owner agreed with Petitioner’s proposal (Prelim. Resp. 8) and Patent Owner has not subsequently disputed Petitioner’s proposal or offered an alternative (see generally PO Resp.). Because we find Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art (Pet. 7; Ex. 1007 ¶ 16) consistent with the level of skill implied by the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Zatarain testifies “[i]n my opinion, detecting the off-on status of an instrument satisfies a PHOSITA’s understanding of the term ‘capable’ as well as relevant dictionary definitions for that term.” Ex. 1030 ¶ 84. Mr. Zatarain’s testimony then repeats the aforementioned definitions (id.), which we find are consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Mr Zatarain also testifies that an instrument that is not powered on “lacks the ability to perform any of its general functions.” Id. ¶ 85. But Mr. Zatarain’s testimony does not provide sufficient explanation as to why the meaning of the words “capable” and “available” overlap, as Petitioner contends (Pet. Reply 22–26). Additionally, Mr. Zatarain’s testimony is conclusory. See Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 84–85. We, instead, credit the testimony of Dr. Zavadsky that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 28, 30–36.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s contentions are premised on its claim construction contentions, which we did not adopt. More specifically, for the reasons discussed supra in Section II.A.2, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of detecting if data are “capable of being [measured/processed]” is detecting “if any instrument has the functional ability to measure measurement data,” as proposed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 14–21. Petitioner relies on two paragraphs of Miyajima describing determining whether an instrument is powered on and, if so, if it is processing another client’s data. Pet. 38–45 (citing e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 47, 55). This description, however, merely is of detecting the instrument’s availability. We do not find that Miyajima’s description of determining whether an instrument is powered on and, if so, if it is processing another client’s data (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 47, 55) teaches “detecting whether the measurement data are capable of being measured by any measurement means in the said server apparatus” (emphasis added) in accordance with our construction, i.e., we do not find Miyajima teaches detecting “if any instrument has the functional ability to measure measurement data.”” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 6,873,940 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,873,940
• Polygroup Limited v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 7, 2018 · IPR2016-01781 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15–18, and 21–27 were not shown unpatentable because Miller did not teach a claimed tree portion and the proposed combination lacked a supported rationale.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “application that is now the ’186 patent. Ex. 1001, (63). In our Final Written Decision addressing the ’186 patent, we agreed with and adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “tree portion.” Polygroup Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., Case IPR2016-01610, Paper 187, 12–21 (Final Written Decision, Feb. 26, 2018). Because the ’072 patent contains the same specification as the ’186 patent, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’072 patent claims in light of the specification would arrive at the same construction for “tree portion” as we did for the ’186 patent. Petitioner agrees the extrinsic evidence before us here is the same as presented in IPR2017-01610, addressing the ’186 patent. Tr. 10:3–6. Petitioner asserts that, relative to our Final Written Decision in IPR2017- 01610, a potential difference here is the structure of the claims. Tr. 9:13–20; see also id. at 8:1–9:6 (setting forth the discussion with Petitioner regarding whether the “tree portion” limitation should be construed the same as in IPR2016-01610). We address that argument below. Patent Owner asserts that the extrinsic evidence is the same relative to IPR2017-01610, but that this record includes additional citations to that evidence. Id. at 26:4–19, 27:1–28:2.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Reviewing the parties’ proposed definitions, we find Petitioner’s to be the more appropriate, with one caveat discussed later. Petitioner’s proposed level of skill would allow that person to understand the prior art in this proceeding and make and/or use it. On the other hand, Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill is too low, and includes persons not involved in the design or creation of the product, such as a person tangentially involved with the product in the manufacturing phase; people who would not know how to make and/or use the relevant art. We agree with Petitioner, arguing in its Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art requires the technical skills and knowledge to be able to understand, e.g., the electrical connections involved in artificial trees. Pet. Reply 2–6. As to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s requirement that a person of ordinary skill has an engineering degree and two year’s practical experience is unduly high (PO Resp. 33–34), we note that the person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical person, and that less education can be offset by more experience—in other words, we do not interpret Petitioner’s list as having a strict requirement for an engineering degree, but rather to set forth the idea that a person of ordinary skill in the art is typified by someone with the knowledge of a person with an engineering degree.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Analysis: Tree Portion Each of the independent claims challenged includes a “tree portion” limitation. Petitioner relies on Miller to teach this limitation. Pet. 28, 37– 38, 54, 57; ’1782 Pet. 26. As we discussed in IPR2016-01610, which we adopt and incorporate herein, Miller does not teach a tree portion. IPR2016- 01610, Paper 187, 33–34. In that decision, we explained that, although Miller’s tree has a trunk, branches, and lights, for example, those structures are not “a mechanically and electrically connectable modular and unitary portion of an artificial tree.” For instance, the branches are not structured as a module along with the trunk—they are completely independent. Accordingly, none of the challenged grounds meet this limitation, and we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15–18, and 21–27 would have been obvious under any of the grounds presented.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “a. Not a Known Alternative We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a tapered electrical connector inside a tube is a known alternative to the snap-fit electrical connector inside a tube of Yang—there is no credible evidence that such a connection was actually known in the art. See Pet. 22–24 (arguing that “a compression-fitted tapered connector [is] one of many known conventional connectors”, “[a] POSA would have known there were numerous but finite designs to enable a secure fit”, “compression-fit connectors were known alternatives”, and characterizing the proposed combination “a substitution of one known element for another” and “obvious to a POSA to try”); see also Pet. Reply 32–33 (making similar arguments). Petitioner’s argument relies heavily on its expert, who in turn cites ten references that, to the extent they represent the state of the art, prove that no one thought to use press-fit electrical connectors in a tube, let alone consider them alternatives to snap-fit electrical connectors. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 90–100. Instead, these references use terms like taper, press-fit, or the like in different contexts for different reasons, not relevant to the present context of securing an electrical connector inside a tube at a certain location by providing a connector having two different diameters.11” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,974,072 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,974,072

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.