• Mianyang Boe Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. / Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-00987 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the Phan-based challenge did not establish its limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “9 In its Opposition to Petitioner’s first motion to strike, which was filed after the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner implies that the teardown images in the Response speak for themselves and, as such, are entitled to a presumption of nexus. See 1st Strike Opp. 3–4; see also Tr. 102:19–103:15 (similar argument by Patent Owner’s counsel at the oral hearing). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner did not assert an entitlement to a presumption of nexus in the Response, and that Patent Owner’s Opposition is an improper vehicle to introduce such an argument. 1st Strike Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner did not address in the Response whether the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra smartphone is coextensive with the claims of the ’803 patent. See id.; Reply 21. Accordingly, we decline to consider any argument that Patent Owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 63

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner

    “For these reasons, we accord Patent Owner’s evidence of long-felt” slip op. at 70

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “9 In its Opposition to Petitioner’s first motion to strike, which was filed after the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner implies that the teardown images in the Response speak for themselves and, as such, are entitled to a presumption of nexus. See 1st Strike Opp. 3–4; see also Tr. 102:19–103:15 (similar argument by Patent Owner’s counsel at the oral hearing). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner did not assert an entitlement to a presumption of nexus in the Response, and that Patent Owner’s Opposition is an improper vehicle to introduce such an argument. 1st Strike Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner did not address in the Response whether the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra smartphone is coextensive with the claims of the ’803 patent. See id.; Reply 21. Accordingly, we decline to consider any argument that Patent Owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus.” slip op. at 63

  Patent outcomesUS 9,818,803 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,818,803
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01054 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4 and 11 are unpatentable over Grotmol and Hickman; claims 5 and 7 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 21 and 24–26 are unpatentable; claims 22 and 23 are not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art, 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness in this proceeding. would have [had] at least: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–42). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Considering the subject matter of the ’974 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’974 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. “connection” Claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, that “a first connection is generated” slip op. at 14

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

    “c) Conclusion—Claim 7 After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we” slip op. at 52

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “7 We recognize that our conclusion here differs from the preliminary determination made in our Preliminary Guidance. After considering the full trial record, including Patent Owner’s MTA Reply, Petitioner’s MTA Sur-reply, Patent Owner’s Sur-sur-reply, and the arguments made at the oral hearing, we find that Petitioner has satisfied its burden of showing that this claim limitation would have been obvious over the Grotmol-Hickman combination. When issuing our Preliminary Guidance, we emphasized that the views expressed therein were “preliminary,” “subject to change upon consideration of the complete record,” and “not binding on the Board when reaching a final written decision.” See Prelim. Guid. 3.” slip op. at 99

  Patent outcomesUS 10,452,974 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,452,974
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–61, 63–77, and 79 are unpatentable as anticipated by Doud; claims 78, 80, and 81 are not shown unpatentable. The contingent motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, metallurgy, or material science or material engineering” or, in the alternative, “would have a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degree in one of these disciplines plus experience involving the use and design of dissolvable metal alloys for use in creating tools and other downhole parts for well drilling or completion activities.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 12 n.4. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan as it is consistent with the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to claim 19, Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “in situ precipitate” and “a plurality of particles of said in situ precipitate having a size of no more than 50 µm.” Pet. 11–12. With respect to claims 76–81, Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “wherein said additive material includes one or more metal materials selected from the group consisting of 0.1–35 wt. % copper, 0.1–24.5 wt. % nickel and 0.1–20 wt. % cobalt.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner contends no claims require construction for purposes of this Decision. PO Resp. 12 n.4, 17–18; Mot. 16–17. Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateWritten description adequateMixed

    “Ex. 2027, 20:25–21:5 (emphasis added). The disclosure that the “magnesium composite” of “[t]he present invention” “includes at least 50 wt% magnesium” is unambiguous and constitutes strong evidence that the inventors were not in possession of a magnesium composite with less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or additive concentrations above 50 wt. %. See SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovasular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that a description of the “present invention” as having a particular structure “is strong evidence that the claims should not be read to encompass the opposite structure”). Consistent with this conclusion, the original claims of the ’295 application all limited the additive material in the composite to 0.05 wt %–45 wt %. Ex. 2027, 26:1– 13, 29:9–15. Likewise, in each example where copper, nickel, or cobalt additives are used in the range recited in the proposed substitute claims, the magnesium composite is “over 50 wt% magnesium,” and any claims that do not require this range of magnesium are limited to an additive range of “about 0.05 wt%–45 wt% of said mixture.”8 Ex. 2027, 6:13–7:4, 7:16–19, 8 Written description support is considered from the view point of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Patent Owner, bearing the burden to show written description support in any priority application for which it seeks the benefit of its filing date, provides no testimony from an ordinarily skilled artisan regarding written description support in the ’295 application, or any evidence to show what such an artisan would conclude from the express disclosures of the ’295 application. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7; In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that “a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Where there is any ambiguity in the disclosures of the ’295 application, the absence of supporting testimony tends to cut against 26:2–31:2; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12, 13, 18, 19, 16–21, 26, 28, claims 16–21, 26– 28. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that the inventors of the priority applications were in possession of a magnesium cast composite that included less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or greater than 50 wt. % additives. As proposed substitute claim 104 encompasses a magnesium cast composite with up to 90 wt. % additives, and therefore as little as 10 wt. % magnesium, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the full scope of this claim finds written description support in any application prior to the ’915 application, filed on October 12, 2018.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed

    “The definiteness requirement of § 112(a) is satisfied when “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (changing the claim construction standard used to review a claim proposed in a motion to amend from the broadest reasonable construction to the “same construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b)”). Proposed substitute claim 104 generically requires “in situ precipitate” and also a specific type of in situ precipitate: “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate.” Mot. Appendix A. Although this claim would have best been clarified by Patent Owner after seeking preliminary guidance on its Motion to Amend, upon review of the written description, claims, and figures of the ’740 patent, as well as Patent Owner’s clarification in its Reply to the Opposition, we agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate” is merely a more complete description of the “in situ precipitate” mentioned earlier in the sentence. Mot. Reply 4. As such, we do not find that this part of proposed substitute claim renders claim 104 indefinite.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,689,740 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740
• Hum Industrial Technology, Inc. v. Amsted Rail Company, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00538 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–10, 13–18, 20–22, 24, 31, and 32 are unpatentable; claims 2–4, 23, and 25–30 were not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend was granted in part and denied in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “d. Summary For the above reasons, we determine that Patent Owner has not shown” slip op. at 100

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther

    “IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit 1034 and page 10 of the Reply” slip op. at 86

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

    “A. “housing” Patent Owner proposes that we construe the term “housing” to mean” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “suggested to one skilled in the art, objective evidence of non-obviousness (“secondary considerations”) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Objective evidence of non-obviousness “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). For us to give substantial weight to objective evidence of nonobviousness, a proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc., v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining non-” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,365,223 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,365,223
• Pelican Biothermal, LLC v. Va-Q-Tec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · PGR2021-00085 · APJ Barry L Grossman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the motion to amend but held amended claim 64 unpatentable as anticipated by NanoCool 98596-type products and obvious over the cited combinations; all other amended claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that amended claim 64 is unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Non-Contingent Motion to Amend is granted for claims 64 and denied for all other amended claims; and” slip op. at 77

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A. Status as Prior Art Is a Substantive Issue, Not an Evidentiary Issue. A motion to exclude is not an appropriate mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of evidence, such as whether a reference qualifies as prior art, or the proper weight that should be afforded an argument. See Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, Paper 113, 4, 8–9 (PTAB September 3, 2015); PTAB Consol. Trial Practice Guide 79 (Nov. 30 Mr. Zumwalt testifies that other NanoCool products, designated by product number 85430 and 98630, also have the same configuration as the 98830 product and are made by the same process. Thus, “the 98830, 85430, and 98630 products can be collectively referred to as ‘98830-type’ products all having the same relevant design.” Ex. 1030 ¶ 17. 2019) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact. A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence—arguments regarding weight should appear only in the merits documents.”); Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2017-02187, Paper 42,17 (PTAB May 21, 2019) (status as prior art “is a substantive issue, not an evidentiary issue.”) Thus, whether the NanoCool 98830 product is prior art is not the proper basis for Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude evidence concerning the NanoCool 98830 product.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Harber provide any analysis of the factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill, identified above, to support their conclusory statements. We give Mr. Harber’s conclusory testimony minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to which we have been directed of the need for specific education or experience in biological or chemical technologies related to the claimed containers and inserts.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and at least two to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [insulated shipping containers] depending on education level.” Pet. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Exhibit 1002 is the Declaration testimony of Mr. Paul Haber. Mr. Harber actually states a slightly different level of ordinary skill. Mr. Harber testifies: The hypothetical POSITA would have: (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and have at least three to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [Insulated Shipping Containers][29]. Such a person may also have (ii) a higher level degree, such as a PhD and/or Master’s degree in engineering, or related sciences, and have at least two to three years of experience in designing and testing ISCs. 29 See Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. Ex. 1002 ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Mr. Harber also testifies that “[t]hese descriptions are approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,766,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,766,685
• Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · PGR2021-00109 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 15–17, and 21–23 are unpatentable; the revised contingent motion to amend is granted for claim 32 and denied for claims 24–31, 33–35, 38–40, and 44–46.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, based on the foregoing and the complete record before” slip op. at 38

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “C. Claim Construction We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteMixed

    “persuaded by Petitioner that the limitations “a channel-shaped portion configured to receive the structural component” and “a base configured to receive an end portion of the structural component thereon to support the structural component” would not have informed the skilled artisan, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of the claimed invention. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“When the meaning of the claim would reasonably be understood by persons of ordinary skill when read in light of the specification, the claim is not subject to invalidity upon departure from the protocol of ‘antecedent basis.’”). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 11,021,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,021,867
• Analog Devices, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc. And Xilinx Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2022 · IPR2020-01596 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–12, and 15–17 are unpatentable as obvious over OneChip and ORT8850; claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because QL80FC was excluded.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Dr. Nelson’s opinion that a person skilled in the art would have had at least the education and experience indicated necessarily encompasses persons having the minimum level of education and experience. It is axiomatic that something that was known or would have been obvious to a person having a minimum level of education and experience would necessarily have been known or obvious to a person having the same or a higher level of education or experience. As we indicated in our Institution Decision, “the level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In our analysis below, we consider all evidence as if viewed by a person having the minimum level of education and experience identified by Dr. Nelson, i.e., having “the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or related field and 3-5 years of professional experience in computer systems design, circuit design, or equivalent academic experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 24

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

    “the parties, we find Petitioner has failed to authenticate Exhibit 1008, and that the dates printed on the faces of Exhibit 1008 and Exhibit A of the Rosenberg declaration are hearsay. Exhibit A of the Rosenberg declaration contains two archived versions, dated September 3, 2000 and October 23, 2000, of the webpage www.quicklogic.com/devices/QuickFC/Default.html. Ex. 1019, Ex. A. The “second page” of the archived webpage contains a link entitled “QuickFC Device DataSheet.” Id. However, as Patent Owner correctly argues, “the Rosenberg Affidavit only purports to ‘attest[] to the authenticity of the archived and dated QuickFC webpages’—not the purportedly linked to [QL80FC] exhibits” and “[t]he Rosenberg Affidavit neither references QL80FC nor makes any assertion of a connection between QL80FC and the webpages shown in the printouts.” PO Resp. 53–54. Petitioner offers no testimony from a custodian of records for the QL80FC product, as they did for the ORT8850 product, to support a finding that Exhibit 1008 is what Petitioner purports it to be. See Fed.R.Evid. 901(a). Moreover, we disagree with Petitioner’s contentions that FREs 703, 901(b)(4) or 902(7) authenticate or provide a basis to forego excluding Exhibit 1008. FRE 703 allows an expert to base his or her opinion on facts or data an expert in the field would reasonably rely on, even if they are not themselves admissible. Id. 703. They do not prohibit the exclusion of inadmissible evidence or allow for the admission of otherwise excludable evidence. Although FRE 901(b)(4) does allow evidence to be admitted based on its “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics,” Petitioner has not shown that Exhibit 1008 contains sufficient distinctive characteristics to authenticate it. The only characteristic of Exhibit 1008 that tends to show that it is a QuickLogic datasheet for the QL80FC product is the appearance of QuickLogic’s name and logo on the datasheet. See Ex, 1008. But Petitioner fails to present authenticated versions of other QuickLogic data sheets to demonstrate how the structure, format, and appearance of QL80FC is consistent with their structure, format, and appearance. See Pet. Reply 22–23; Opp. 14–15. Finally, FRE 902(7) does not authenticate Exhibit 1008, it only authenticates any “inscription[s], sign[s], tag[s], or label[s]” affixed to Exhibit 1008. See Fed.R.Evid. 902(7). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner has failed to authenticate Exhibit 1008, and we exclude Exhibit 1008 from this proceeding.” slip op. at 22

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

    “1. Programmable Fabric / Programmable Fabric Circuitry Petitioner contends these terms “refer to user programmable circuitry capable of being programmed to implement arbitrary, as opposed to specific, logic functions.” Pet. 10. In our Institution Decision, we determined the precise meanings of these terms were not in dispute and, therefore, declined to expressly construe them. See Dec. Inst. 19–20 (citing Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017). Neither party disputes that finding, which we maintain here. See PO Resp. 8; Pet. Reply 3–30.” slip op. at 26

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

    “maintain our preliminary construction that the plain and ordinary meaning of the transceiver component limitation requires the LOS detector to be “a transceiver component having selectable values that is configured by the plurality of configuration memory cells.” The limitation requires “a plurality of transceivers containing respective components having selectable values,” wherein “said components [are] configured by . . . memory cells,” and wherein “one of said components is a loss of synchronization detector.” Ex. 1001, 6:32–36 (emphases added). Thus, the LOS detector is one of the transceiver components referred to earlier, i.e., one of “said components” “having selectable values” that is “configured by . . . memory cells.” Id. The Specification is consistent with this interpretation. It discloses a transceiver whose receiver side includes deserializer/comma detector 174, decoder 178, elastic buffer 182, CRC 186, and LOS 188.10 Id., Fig. 3. Each of these components is described as being configurable and having selectable values. Id. at 4:54–6:7. Moreover, our interpretation does not render superfluous the use of the term “configurable” in other limitations. To the contrary, the transceiver components limitation only requires transceiver components identified as “one of said components,” i.e., as one of the “respective components having selectable values” to be configurable. It does not require every transceiver component to be configurable because not every transceiver component has to be identified as “one of said components.” Thus, because the serializer and deserializer are not identified as “one of said components” in the “transceiver components” limitation, that limitation does not require that they be configurable. As a result, the claim’s later requirement of “a configurable serializer” and “a configurable deserializer” is not superfluous.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,187,709 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,187,709
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al. v. Sisvel International S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01102 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 15–20, 30, and 31 are unpatentable as obvious over Qualcomm and TS25.322; claims 6–14 and 21–29 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 32–35, 45–49, 59, and 60 were denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have a degree in electrical engineering or similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience in telecommunication, including familiarity with cellular communications technologies,” that this person “would also have familiarity with WCDMA,” and that “[t]his definition is approximate,” as “more education may substitute for industry experience or vice versa.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 30–34). We adopted Petitioner’s proposal at institution. See Decision 7–8. In its Response, Patent Owner “proposes that a person having ordinary skill at the time of invention—August 23, 2005—in the relevant art would be one with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer sciences, or telecommunications, along with three to five or more years of practical experience in the field” and that “[a] combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). Patent Owner asserts that “[a]lthough [its] proposed level of skill in the art is similar to Petitioners’ proposal, Patent Owner includes the qualification that a combination of more experience in the field and less education, or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” Id. The parties do not argue that the formulation of the level of skill in the art affects any issue in this case, and we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s formulation, which we find to be generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’443 patent and the prior art, and which includes that “more education may substitute for industry experience or vice versa.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “length indicator” to mean “a single length indicator that provides two pieces of information: (1) that a first data octet of the protocol data unit is a first octet of a first service data unit; and (2) that at least one other octet of the protocol data unit is the last octet of another service data unit.” See Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We agreed with Patent Owner that the specification’s description of a single length indicator that conveys both types of information and the arguments made during prosecution that the claims required a “single LI” or “the same length indicator” to include both types of information were sufficient to support a construction that required a single length indicator to include both pieces of information. See Decision 9. Although it did not propose a construction in the Petition, Petitioner now argues that “the claim language uses the indefinite article ‘a’ to modify ‘length indicator’” and that “[p]recedent is well settled 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.’” Pet. Reply 5 (citing KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). While we agree with Petitioner that “a” may mean “one or more,” that simply means that the addition of more length indicators would not be excluded from the scope of the claim. Petitioner does not explain, and we do not see, how that affects the meaning of “length indicator” itself and, for the reasons argued by Patent Owner and adopted at institution, we maintain the earlier construction of “length indicator” as “a single length indicator that provides two pieces of information: (1) that a first data octet of the protocol data unit is a first octet of a first service data unit; and (2) that at least one other octet of the protocol data unit is the last octet of another service data unit.” See Decision 8; Prelim. Resp. 9–12; PO Resp. 10–13. slip op. at 11

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

    “We also observe that, although Patent Owner characterizes this issue as one based on “teaching away” (see, e.g., PO Resp. 3; PO Sur-Reply 15– 16), the argument is not about teaching away because Patent Owner is not pointing us to any specific teaching in the prior art, or elsewhere, that would counsel against the proposed modification. Patent Owner is not arguing that something in the prior art disparages or discourages the use of one bit of an LI as a flag. Instead, Patent Owner is arguing that one of skill in the art would not pursue the Qualcomm approach because to do so would mean accepting other drawbacks that would flow from the use of the flag. In any event, we credit Patent Owner’s evidence that dedicating a bit of the LI for use as a flag would reduce the length that could be represented by the remaining bits of the LI and cause SDUs to be divided into more PDUs. See, e.g., Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 30, 32. However, the record also shows that use of the flag would provide a specific advantage, as described in Qualcomm. See Ex. 1006, 3; Ex. 1007 ¶ 253. This is the motivation advanced by Petitioner which, notably, Patent Owner does not dispute. We conclude that, even if Patent Owner is correct that the proposal in Qualcomm would reduce the permitted PDU size from 128 octets to 64, the change would merely be something a skilled artisan would need to weigh against the advantages that the Qualcomm technique would provide. Patent Owner may be correct that the reduced lengths would, in the end, render the modified system unsuitable for certain applications or for adoption in a standard. That would not, however, make the modification nonobvious, particularly where the exact change proposed in the combination was suggested by individuals working in the field, as evidenced by Qualcomm itself.7 The record shows that at least some of those working in the field, at the time of the invention, believed that the advantages of Qualcomm’s approach would outweigh the reduced lengths.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenMixed

    “In TS25.322, the value “0000000” is a predefined, special value used to indicate that “[t]he previous RLC PDU was exactly filled with the last segment of an RLC SDU and there is no ‘Length Indicator’ that indicates the end of the RLC SDU in the previous RLC PDU.” See Ex. 1005, 36–37. However, although Qualcomm specifically contemplates implementing its flag scheme by “[r]e-arrang[ing] special LI values as they are now coded on less number of bits” (Ex. 1006, 4), the Petition did not argue a combination that includes modification of the special LIs for the independent claims. Instead, Petitioner relied on Qualcomm’s proposal to modify ordinary LIs that indicate the end of SDUs. See, e.g., Pet. 71–72 (describing and illustrating modification of the LI that identified the end of SDU 1: “[t]he green modified LI indicates that a first data octet of PDU is a first octet of SDU1 and another octet of the PDU is the last octet of SDU1”); Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 261–262. Petitioner’s argument with respect to these claims is thus not consistent with the argument it advanced for the independent claims from which these claims depend. Petitioner cannot reasonably rely on one type of prior art LI as the “length indicator” of claim 1, but then shift to a different type of prior art LI when addressing the very same “length indicator” recited in a dependent claim. Moreover, Petitioner fails to explain how or why the special LI “0000000” that is used to indicate the layout of the previous PDU could reasonably be used to also indicate the layout of the current PDU in which the LI appears. For example, if the previous PDU did not meet the condition identified by the “0000000” special value, then the LI would not appear in the next PDU even if that next PDU had a first SDU that ended in that PDU. For these reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation or argument to establish obviousness of claims 6 and 21.9” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,894,443 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,894,443
• Polygroup Limited Mco v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2020 · IPR2016-01612 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’186 patent were held unpatentable; other remanded challenged claims were not, and substitute claims 29 and 30 were allowed.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated our Original Decision in part and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd, 759 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019). After conferring with the parties, we permitted additional briefing to address the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 196.” slip op. at 2

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

    “electrical connection in a single step (e.g., “‘when’ the mechanical connection is made, an electrical connection is also made”) as Patent Owner alleges. Rather, claim 1 requires “a first trunk electrical connector” and “a second trunk electrical connector” with “the second tree portion [being] electrically connectable to the first tree portion such that a portion of the first trunk electrical connector of the first trunk portion contacts a portion of the second trunk electrical connector of the second trunk portion.” Although the claim also requires that “the second tree portion is mechanically coupleable to the first tree portion about a central vertical axis,” the claim permits that mechanical connection to be independent of the electrical connection. Giving claim 1 its proper reading, there is no dispute that Miller teaches first and second trunk electrical connectors or that its tree portions are coupleable about a central vertical axis as outlined in the Petition. See Pet. I 45–48.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner contends that one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings based on those from Lessner. Pet. II 65–70. Petitioner reasons, for example, that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to enhance the mechanical and electrical connections between the electrical contacts sets and wiring assemblies of Miller[] with the detachable electrical connectors of Lessner” for “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly.” Id. at 65–66 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner further reasons that “the detachable connectors of Lessner provide a quick-connect engagement allowing the builder to easily and quickly attach the wires to the terminals on the trunk connector during assembly,” which “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts.” Id. at 66. Petitioner’s contentions as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings are unpersuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner cited Miller’s plug and socket connectors as corresponding to the recited trunk connectors. Petitioner’s proposed modification in the Miller alone challenge adds an additional connection point in Miller’s plug and socket connectors, further complicating assembly, rather than providing greater “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly” as alleged. Petitioner’s additional reasoning that the proposed modification “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts” is equally unpersuasive. The only difference resulting from the modification is that the plug and socket connectors could be removed from their respective wiring assemblies. That is, it provides for removal of one connector by providing yet another connector, which fails to provide a benefit because Miller’s plug and socket connectors are loose, rather than fixed within the trunk portions like Patent Owner’s connectors. For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability of claim 7 of the ’186 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner

    “D. Secondary Considerations As explained in the Original Decision, Patent Owner provides evidence related to non-obviousness of the claims. Original Decision 43–60. Considering that evidence, as explained in the Original Decision, relative to the fact that Miller alone teaches each element of these claims in a single embodiment16, we determine that Patent Owner’s evidence does not outweigh Petitioner’s case of obviousness for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has established by the preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable. Petitioner has failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,454,187 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,454,187
• Polygroup Limited Mco v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2020 · IPR2016-01610 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’186 patent were held unpatentable; other remanded challenged claims were not shown unpatentable, and substitute claims 29 and 30 were allowed.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated our Original Decision in part and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd, 759 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019). After conferring with the parties, we permitted additional briefing to address the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 196.” slip op. at 2

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

    “and the second wire are detachably connected to the first trunk electrical connector of the first trunk portion.” Petitioner acknowledges that “Miller does not expressly teach that the wiring assembly is ‘modular’ or ‘separably connected.’” Pet. II 65. Petitioner contends that “assemblies for providing a detachable connection between electrical contact sets and wiring harnesses were well-known in the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that “Lessner teaches a ‘quick-disconnect electrical connector for receiving and releasably retaining a male tab connector’ and a [person of skill in the art (POSA)] would recognize that it may be used to create detachable connections between the electrical contacts of a connector or plug, and the wires of a wiring assembly.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 1:10–11; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings based on those from Lessner. Pet. II 65–70. Petitioner reasons, for example, that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to enhance the mechanical and electrical connections between the electrical contacts sets and wiring assemblies of Miller[] with the detachable electrical connectors of Lessner” for “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly.” Id. at 65–66 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner further reasons that “the detachable connectors of Lessner provide a quick-connect engagement allowing the builder to easily and quickly attach the wires to the terminals on the trunk connector during assembly,” which “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts.” Id. at 66. Petitioner’s contentions as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings are unpersuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner cited Miller’s plug and socket connectors as corresponding to the recited trunk connectors. Petitioner’s proposed modification in the Miller alone challenge adds an additional connection point in Miller’s plug and socket connectors, further complicating assembly, rather than providing greater “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly” as alleged. Petitioner’s additional reasoning that the proposed modification “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts” is equally unpersuasive. The only difference resulting from the modification is that the plug and socket connectors could be removed from their respective wiring assemblies. That is, it provides for removal of one connector by providing yet another connector, which fails to provide a benefit because Miller’s plug and socket connectors are loose, rather than fixed within the trunk portions like Patent Owner’s connectors. For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability of claim 7 of the ’186 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedUnpatentable

    “D. Secondary Considerations As explained in the Original Decision, Patent Owner provides evidence related to non-obviousness of the claims. Original Decision 43–60. Considering that evidence, as explained in the Original Decision, relative to the fact that Miller alone teaches each element of these claims in a single embodiment16, we determine that Patent Owner’s evidence does not outweigh Petitioner’s case of obviousness for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has established by the preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable. Petitioner has failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The figure reproduced above is a portion of Miller’s Figure 2, which is a front, partial section view of its artificial tree, along with Petitioner’s annotations noting Miller’s electrical connections (circled in red). Pet. I 29. As seen above, Petitioner cites Miller’s plug and socket connection as the electrical connection recited in the claims. See Pet. I 33 (“Miller also teaches that wires 22 of trunks 3, 5 are electrically connectable via plug and socket connectors of Fig. 2.”), 42, 57–58 (presenting similar contentions for claims 20 and 28). The problem with Petitioner’s contentions that rely on Miller alone is that the electrical connection in Miller is independent of the mechanical connection of tree portions (i.e., the mechanical connection does not result in the electrical connection in the manner claimed). For at least this reason, Petitioner’s challenges to claims 10, 20, and 28 based on Miller alone fail.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,454,186 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,454,186

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.