- Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand
The majority determined claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst; the dissent would have found them obvious.
RulingsRemand decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We determine Patent Owner’s reading of the claim limitation is the better one. The limitation begins with the verb “locating,” and it therefore makes sense that the clause would recite what is located (i.e., encryption information) and where it is located (i.e., within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video). In other words, it is reasonable that the second and third clauses of the limitation both modify the first clause (for example, as could perhaps be expressed through the use of commas as “locating encryption information, that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video, within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video”).10 On the other hand, Petitioner’s reading of the limitation, 10 In general, we recognize that the use of commas to set off phrases in claim drafting is not consistent. We included commas above to illustrate Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim limitation. allowing only the second clause to modify the first, while not unreasonable, makes less sense. That is, the encrypted information identifies the encrypted portions of frames, which in turn are within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. Reading the claim in its entirety, the encrypted portions of frames would be understood to be located within the requested portions of the stream; it does not seem necessary for the claim to expressly recite that aspect. For example, the very next limitation— limitation [m] of claim 1—refers to “each encrypted portion of the frames of video” but does not expressly recite “within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Ex. 1001, 27:58–60. Thus, when limitation [l] recites “within the requested portions of the selected stream,” it seems more likely that the clause refers to where that encrypted information is located rather than simply to indicate the obvious location of the encrypted portion of the frames of video. We therefore view Patent Owner’s reading of the claim language as the better one.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundMixed
“I am persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17– 19, 69–70). I agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41– 15:60). I determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 52
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“I agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, specifically pages 1–7, attempt to address aspects of claim 1 for the first time on remand. I also agree that Patent Owner’s arguments attempt to recharacterize limitations [j] and [k] to raise issues that Patent Owner did not raise previously, in contravention of our Order that issues raised needed support from “where those issues were raised in previous briefings by the parties.” Paper 56, 2. I have addressed whether scalability and FEC are integral to how Chen operates above, as well as whether the Petition relies on those aspects, supra. The questions about how Chen operates and what portions of Chen are asserted in the ground of unpatentability were previously raised, but now are being considered or reconsidered, based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. In Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, pages 1–7, the citations to argument previously raised do not support the arguments now presented by Patent Owner on remand. As such, I determine Patent Owner’s new arguments fall outside the scope of remand, and I dismiss these arguments seeking to distinguish limitations [j] and [k] from the cited prior art combination.24” slip op. at 62
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed
“7 Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand recognizes that there are two arguments Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner Response that were not addressed in the Final Written Decision. See PO Remand Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 24–37 (the construction of “locating encrypted information . . . within requested portions”), 38–58 (referring to Patent Owner’s “common keys” argument)). 8 The Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42). See Final Dec. 28–37 (granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part Petitioner’s Motion). Our determinations on that Motion were part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not impact our previous rulings on the Motion, we maintain those rulings here. Additionally, on remand, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions, which we held in abeyance until the parties’ briefing on remand was complete. See Ex. 3003, 1. Petitioner requests sanctions because of the impropriety of Patent Owner’s remand brief, including new claim construction arguments for limitations [1j] and [1k], and prejudice to Petitioner. Id. at 3, 5. Although we reserved further consideration of Petitioner’s request, we expanded both the time and pages allowed for Petitioner’s responsive brief, and also allowed Petitioner to address any related issues in its responsive brief. Id. at 1. Having considered the parties’ briefing on remand, and given that we do not reach the claim construction arguments that Petitioner objected to in its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions, we deny Petitioner’s request.” slip op. at 5
Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,225,588 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00910 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–6 over all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing; denied joinder as moot.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 9
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Patent Owner argues the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because (1) “Petitioner’s inability to commit to non-duplicative efforts between the District Court Litigation and this proceeding weighs in favor of discretionary den[ial]” (Prelim. Resp. 59), and (2) Petitioner failed to request a conference call prior to filing its Motion for Joinder (Prelim. Resp. 59–60). Petitioner asserts that no trial date has been set in the parallel district court litigation, which Patent Owner does not dispute. Pet. 55; Prelim. Resp. 59–60. Additionally, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (CTPG) states that “[a] party who files a motion for joinder should arrange a conference call . . . within five business days of filing the motion.” CTPG 76 (Nov. 2019) (emphasis added).8 In light of the termination of the earlier proceeding, Petitioner’s failure to request a conference call is harmless error. Thus, we find Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive and decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,445,041 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’041 patent”). Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder requesting joinder with IPR2022-01548 (Paper 2), but IPR2022- 01548 has since terminated due to settlement (IPR2022-01548, Paper 18). Therefore, we deny the Motion as moot. Patent Owner Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a [b]achelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, with 2–3 years of experience in digital video processing, or a related field, or equivalent research or professional experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). Patent Owner states that it applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for the purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 29. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill, with the exclusion of “at least” in defining the education 6 US 2011/0097059 A1, published Apr. 28, 2011. Ex. 1008. Petitioner refers to “Sekiguchi” as “Seikiguchi.” See, e.g., Pet. 3. level, which would render the definition open-ended and inclusive of persons of expert-level skill.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,445,041 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00993 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10–14, 19, 20, 23–30, and 32 are unpatentable under § 103 based on Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzing the breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’994 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzing the breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.18” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“D. Other Claim Terms The Parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms, and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the Parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelOther
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Kirkness’s testimony, proposes that a” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“19, 20, 23–26, 28–30, and 32 and supported on the complete record before us, and, therefore, we adopt them as our own findings. See Pet. 66– 77. Accordingly, for the reasons explained by Petitioner, we find that the combination of Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews satisfies the elements of claims 6, 7, 10–14, 19, 20, 23–26, 28–30, and 32.” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 6,988,994 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,988,994 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00405 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Harris, the FBDIMM Standards, and Amidi; the Board did not reach the Spiers grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“the combination of Harris and FBDIMM Standards and relies on the Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe (Ex. 1003) in support. Pet. 14–40. For the reasons that follow, we are persuaded that the evidence, including Dr. Wolfe’s testimony, supports Petitioner’s showing and establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and two years working or studying in the field of design or development of memory systems, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and at least three years working in the field.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). Petitioner contends that additional training can substitute for educational or research experience, and vice versa. Id. at 8. Petitioner asserts that such a hypothetical person would have been familiar with the JEDEC industry standards, and knowledgeable about the design and operation of standardized DRAM and SDRAM memory devices and memory modules and how they interacted with a memory controller and other parts of a computer system, including standard communication busses and protocols, such as PCI and SMBus busses and protocols. Id. Petitioner further contends that such “a hypothetical person would also have been familiar with the structure and operation of circuitry used to access and control computer memories, including sophisticated circuits such as ASICs, FPGAs, and CPLDs, and more low-level circuits such as tri-state buffers.” Id. Petitioner further asserts that such “a hypothetical person would further have been familiar with voltage supply requirements of such structures (e.g., memory modules, memory devices, memory controller, and associated access and control circuitry), including voltage conversion and voltage regulation circuitry.” Id. Patent Owner indicates “[f]or the purposes of this [Response], Patent Owner is applying the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” Resp. 2. The evidence that Petitioner presents mostly applies to the educational level and experience of workers in the field, but also touches upon other factors as well, including problems and solutions in the prior art and complexity of the technology. See Pet. 7–8. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the ’054 patent and the prior art of record, and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the open-ended language “at least,” which introduces ambiguity and may encompass skill levels beyond ordinary.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“The District Court’s Claim Construction Order (Ex. 2032) issued after our Institution Decision (Paper 11). Although Petitioner argued in the District Court litigation that the claim preambles were not limiting, Petitioner does not appear to maintain that argument here following the District Court’s determination that the preambles are limiting. Ex. 2032, 35. Since the term is recited in both the preambles and bodies of these claims, there is evidence that the inventors of the ’054 patent intended the term to limit the claim, as the District Court determined. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings,com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Bell Commc’ns Rsch., Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner’s contention that “memory module” is not limited to “main memory modules . . . designed to connect to the primary memory controller.” See Reply 2. The ’054 patent states In certain embodiments, the device contains a high density Flash memory with a low density DRAM, wherein the DRAM is used as a data buffer for read/write operation. The Flash serves as the main memory. Ex. 1001, 11:3–6 (emphases added). This is the only mention of “main memory” in the ’054 patent. That the Flash memory serves as “main memory” in “certain embodiments” implies that there may be other embodiments in which this is not the case. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the term “memory module” is not limited to “main memory modules . . . designed to connect to the primary memory controller.” We agree with Patent Owner that the “memory module” includes structure to connect with a “host system” including its memory controller. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, code (57), 12:52–59. The claims do not mention a “memory controller,” but they do mention that the “memory module” has an “interface” to connect with a “host system.” Ex. 1001, 38:20–25 (claim 1), 39:63–65 (claim 16), 41:6–8 (claim 24). That the “memory module” has structure for connecting to the host system’s memory controller may thus be implied from the claims. We agree with Petitioner that the District Court’s determination was that the preambles (presumably of claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 16 and 25) are limiting. Ex. 2032, 35. To the extent that the District Court’s determination construed “memory module” to include structure necessary to connect to a memory controller, our construction of “memory module” is consistent.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,232,054 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,232,054 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00999 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Harris, the FBDIMM Standards, and Amidi, with Hajeck also supporting Ground 3; Grounds 4 and 5 were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. The prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an advanced degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and two years working or studying in the field of design or development of memory systems, or a bachelor’s degree in such engineering disciplines and at least three years working in the field.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). Petitioner contends that additional training can substitute for educational or research experience, and vice versa. Id. at 8. Petitioner asserts that such a hypothetical person would have been familiar with the JEDEC industry standards, and knowledgeable about the design and operation of standardized DRAM and SDRAM memory devices and memory modules and how they interacted with a memory controller and other parts of a computer system, including standard communication busses and protocols, such as PCI and SMBus busses and protocols. Id. Petitioner further contends that such “a hypothetical person would also have been familiar with the structure and operation of circuitry used to access and control computer memories, including sophisticated circuits such as ASICs, FPGAs, and CPLDs, and more low-level circuits such as tri-state buffers.” Id. Petitioner further asserts that such “a hypothetical person would further have been familiar with voltage supply requirements of such structures (e.g., memory modules, memory devices, memory controller, and associated access and control circuitry), including voltage conversion and voltage regulation circuitry.” Id. Patent Owner indicates “[f]or the purposes of this [Response], Patent Owner is applying the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” Resp. 2. The evidence that Petitioner presents mostly applies to the educational level and experience of workers in the field, but also touches upon other factors as well, including problems and solutions in the prior art and complexity of the technology. See Pet. 7–8. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the ’054 patent and the prior art of record, and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the open-ended language “at least,” which introduces ambiguity and may encompass skill levels beyond ordinary.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“The District Court’s Claim Construction Order (Ex. 2032) issued after our Institution Decision (Paper 11). Although Petitioner argued in the District Court litigation that the claim preambles were not limiting, Petitioner does not appear to maintain that argument here following the District Court’s determination that the preambles are limiting. Ex. 2032, 35. Since the term is recited in both the preambles and bodies of these claims, there is evidence that the inventors of the ’054 patent intended the term to limit the claim, as the District Court determined. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings,com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Bell Commc’ns Rsch., Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the “memory module” includes structure to connect with a “host system” including its memory controller. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, code (57), 12:52–59. The claims do not mention a “memory controller,” but they do mention that the “memory module” has an “interface” to connect with a “host system.” Ex. 1001, 38:20–25 (claim 1), 39:63–65 (claim 16), 41:6–8 (claim 24). That the “memory module” has structure for connecting to the host system’s memory controller may thus be implied from the claims. We agree with Petitioner that the District Court’s determination was that the preambles (presumably of claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 16 and 25) are limiting. Ex. 2032, 35. To the extent that the District Court’s determination construed “memory module” to include structure necessary to connect to a memory controller, our construction of “memory module” is consistent.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“conversion for double-rank DIMMs can be accommodated with a form factor design of approximately about one square inch (both sides of the printed circuit board).” Ex. 1023 ¶ 13. Thus, Harris indicates that the VRM circuitry to generate two regulated voltages can fit within this space. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s evidence shows that each ADP1821 converter package would be about 0.193 by 0.236 inches. Sur-Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1078, 20–23). This means three ADP1821 converters would occupy about 40% of the available space. Patent Owner does not demonstrate that the remaining 60% of available space would have been insufficient to accommodate the additional components required for three voltage converters. Id. at 12–13. In any case, we do not view Harris’s disclosure of “approximately about one square inch” to limit the applicability of its teachings to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In the same paragraph, Harris states that the form factor “may be suitably modified.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 13. Patent Owner further argues that “independent voltage sources for different voltages would require specific control circuitry to delay and more precisely control each voltage source’s ramping rate, adding complexity and cost without commensurate benefits.” Sur-Reply 14 (citing Ex. 2061 ¶ 90). However, Dr. Wolfe states that it is simpler to use multiple regulators for multiple voltages since a single regulator that generates multiple voltages is more complicated than multiple regulators. Ex. 2060, 53:16–54:14, 89:1–21, cited in Reply 14. Dr. Wolfe further indicates that buck converters can be in some applications “extremely small.” Ex. 2060, 89:11–15. Dr. Wolfe further testifies that multiple smaller converters may be less costly than a larger single converter because of component costs, separated spaces available for converters on circuit board, and other “ordinary engineering factors.” Id. at 45:21–46:10. Although Patent Owner may be correct that individual control of multiple voltage regulators would have required additional control circuitry, this does not meaningfully undermine the benefits that Petitioner mentions including permitting power sequencing, independent control of voltages, improved efficiency without generating excess heat or requiring cooling devices, and saving power. Pet. 29–30 (citing id. at 14–19; Ex. 1028, 17–20; Ex. 1026, 2–3, 9; Ex. 1028, 30–32; Ex. 1040, 1, 23–24 (Figs. 22–25); Ex. 1041, 1, 13; Ex. 1048, 3; Ex. 1058, 5; Ex. 1059, 5:23–30; Ex. 1062, 11, 13; Ex. 1064 ¶ 101; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 240, 255). Dr. Wolfe testified that, in at least some circumstances, multiple converters may be less complicated, less costly, and take up less space. Ex. 2060, 45:21–46:10, 89:11–15. Patent Owner’s argument that a single converter generating multiple voltages would be better in some circumstances does not negate that Petitioner’s proposed use of multiple converters for multiple voltages would have been preferred in other circumstances that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Our caselaw is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument does not undermine Petitioner’s showing of a motivation to combine Harris and the FBDIMM Standards.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,232,054 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,232,054 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00988 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–30 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence, based on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“ORDER21 Upon consideration of the record before us, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 45) is denied; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 46) is denied;” slip op. at 82
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“1. “troubled wakefulness” Dependent claims 12 and 22 each recite, “wherein the awake state is a” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’009 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 9,108,009 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,108,009 - Infinera Corporation v. Alexander Soto And Walter SotoInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00838 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Vrazel’s encoder or encoder and pre-distorter provided the claimed m-ary modulator for claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10–17, 22, and 23.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We accordingly determine that Petitioner does not sufficiently show that Vrazel meets the requirements of the recited “m-ary modulator” in any of the challenged independent claims. We therefore conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claims 1, 22, or 23 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pang and Vrazel.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Because it is dispositive, we focus our analysis on each independent claim’s recitation of “an m-ary modulator for increasing the number of bits per symbol in the first electrical data signal to produce a first m-ary modulation signal.” Ex. 1001, 15:6–8 (claim 1), 17:13–15 (claim 22), 18:9– 11 (claim 23). In addressing this limitation, Petitioner relies solely on Vrazel, which Petitioner contends “discloses this limitation in at least two ways.” Pet. 28 (addressing claim 1), 64 (addressing claim 22 by referring to analysis for claim 1), 66 (addressing claim 23 by referring to analysis for claim 1).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “Petitioner proposes that each claim term in the Challenged Claims be given its plain and ordinary meaning in this proceeding, and that no specific construction of any claim term is required.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner similarly does not propose any explicit construction of any claim term in its Preliminary Response. On the record before us, we do not find it necessary to construe any term for this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,771,181 - Infinera Corporation v. Alexander Soto And Walter SotoInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00835 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, and 11–20 were unpatentable over Pang and Vrazel.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We accordingly determine that Petitioner does not sufficiently show that the Vrazel meets the requirements of the recited “m-ary modulator.” We therefore conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pang and Vrazel. F. Dependent Claims Each of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, and 11–20 depends directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, and Petitioner challenges those claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pang and Vrazel. Ex. 1001, 15:29–16:33; Pet. 53–67. The deficiency in Petitioner’s analysis of independent claim 1 also applies to each of the dependent claims. We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, and 11–20.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering or a similar degree and at least two years of professional experience with optical communications, networking, and signal processing.” Pet. 7. Petitioner adds that “[m]ore experience can supplement less education and vice versa,” and supports its proposal with testimony by Dr. Min. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner does not specifically address the level of ordinary skill in its Preliminary Response. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by Dr. Min’s testimony, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “Petitioner proposes that each claim term in the Challenged Claims be given its plain and ordinary meaning in this proceeding, and that no specific construction of any claim term is required.” Pet. 6–7. Patent Owner similarly does not propose any explicit construction of any claim term in its Preliminary Response. On the record before us, we do not find it necessary to construe any term for this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We accordingly determine that Petitioner does not sufficiently show that the Vrazel meets the requirements of the recited “m-ary modulator.” We therefore conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pang and Vrazel. F. Dependent Claims Each of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, and 11–20 depends directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, and Petitioner challenges those claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pang and Vrazel. Ex. 1001, 15:29–16:33; Pet. 53–67. The deficiency in Petitioner’s analysis of independent claim 1 also applies to each of the dependent claims. We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, and 11–20.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,263,723 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00943 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8 and 14 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that: On or before 7/12/2017, [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, in electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately three years of experience or equivalent study in voice-controlled devices in smart home systems. Additional graduate education could 2 Neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to such objective evidence of nonobviousness. in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 18. We adopted this definition for the purposes of the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 4. We again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill as reflected in the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Absent a recitation of order, or an order mandated by grammar or logic, the steps of a method claim are not construed to require a particular order. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Patent Owner argues that the steps of claim 1, a method claim, must be performed in sequential order. PO Resp. 13–16. Without commenting on or conceding Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner contends that “the trial grounds meet this proposed construction.” Pet. Reply 24–25; Tr. 8:25–11:16. Our record does not reflect any indication that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring the sequential ordering of the method steps is not at least encompassed by the correct construction of claim 1. Because of this, and because Petitioner agrees that the arguments in the Petition meet this construction, we accept Patent Owner’s construction as correct for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s showing uses the same sound data to teach the “first sound data” of limitation 1.a and the “second sound data” of limitation 1.c. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s claim 5 describes the determination of a volume threshold based on the volume of the ambient audio signal in which characteristic form(s) (e.g., the name of the user of the media player) are present. Ex. 1006, 13:66–21, 14:28–30. However, the Petition describes using Fu’s “predetermined threshold” in combination with Hart-787’s device, which attenuates audio output of a device upon detecting a user’s utterance intended to gain the attention of the device, in order to “include adjusting the audio output volume of a wirelessly-linked audio-producing device when the voice-controlled device determines that the ambient noise level at the time a Ex. 1004, 2:22–37, 5:61–6:10, 9:18–25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24, 32, 54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89). Petitioner further proposes including a threshold that is advantageously based on the environment in which the device is operating as described in Fu, for example to respond to differing levels of noise at different times of day. Id. at 26, 29–30, 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:42–67, 14:28–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–53, 55, 58, 87, 91, 107–109). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments address the references individually instead of addressing the combination of the teachings proposed in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 8, 13–14; see also Dec. on Inst. 21–22, 23–24, 25–26. The Petition relies upon a combination of elements of Hart-787 with the predetermined threshold as taught in Fu and with establishing such a threshold based on the operating environment of a device as in Rosenberg. Pet. 26–31, 34–41. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s threshold is set at the time of the utterance in Rosenberg’s claim 5 and cites Petitioner’s declarant as “conceding” issues regarding how “Rosenberg’s volume threshold is determined.” PO Resp. 20–21. But this argument and the ostensible concession do not squarely address the proposed combination, which combines Fu’s teaching of an adjustment unit that “compares the volume of the ambient noise received . . . to a predetermined threshold” with Rosenberg’s teaching that such “a threshold may be ‘determined based on the volume of [an] ambient audio signal.’” Pet. 39, 40 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1006, 14:28–30). While Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner has not proposed using a predetermined/pre-set threshold or a previously established threshold based on environmental noise in the combination of Hart-787 with F[u] and Rosenberg” (PO Resp. 46), we find, on the contrary, that the Petition describes a combination based predetermined threshold” and on a threshold “determined according to an environmental noise level.” Pet. 29–30. Thus, we find Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds do not suffer from the issues Patent Owner argues are a consequence of the purported use of the same sound data for the “first sound data” of claim limitation 1.a and for the “second sound data” of claim limitation 1.c. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Fu’s teachings with respect to limitation 1.e’s “transition from a first state having a first volume level to a second state having a second volume level that is less than the first volume level” because these arguments similarly do not address the proposed combination. See PO Resp. 26–30. The Petition cites Hart-787 for attenuating the volume of an audio-producing device when a wake word is issued. Pet. 32–34, 43–44. The Petition cites Fu for adjusting volume of an audio-producing device if the level of ambient noise exceeds a predetermined threshold. Id. at 36–39, 44–45. Thus, even if Fu teaches only increasing the volume of an audio-producing device if the predetermined threshold is exceeded, the Petition relies on the combination of teachings of Hart-787 and Fu, and Patent Owner’s argument that neither reference teaches “decreasing a controllable appliance’s volume output when a previously established volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) does not address the combination proposed. Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner has not proposed modifying Fu to decrease a controllable appliance’s volume output when a volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) similarly does not address the combination proposed in the Petition. We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references. transmitted volume down control signals as the means for attenuating audio output, Petitioner contends that Hart-787 “broadly teaches” that a device transmits control command signals to the audio-producing device, relying on the testimony of its declarant. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 82), 43–44 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:67–2:7, 2:26–27, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). In addition, Petitioner shows that these control signals were well-known in the art and would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, supporting its showing with additional testimony from its declarant. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 10183, 2:39–47, 5:35–38; Ex. 10194 ¶¶ 3, 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 118). We conclude Petitioner’s evidence regarding the showing in Hart-787 is sufficient with respect to this point. Hart-787 describes altering a signal sent to the speaker to attenuate the audio from that speaker. Ex. 1004, 1:67– 2:1. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that using transmitted control signals to do this would have been known to one of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 82, 118. We consider Petitioner’s evidence regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Hart-787’s disclosure to be sufficient for the showing regarding the “causing one or more commands to be automatically issued to the controllable appliance to thereby cause” that appliance to transition to a lower volume level, as required in limitation 1.e. While Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant “concede[s] that Hart- 787 does not disclose or teach how its voice-controlled device decreases the audio output of the controllable appliance,” the cited portion of the” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,930,276 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,930,276 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01165 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Peloton would show at least one claim obvious over Morris and Ray.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Rawl’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “is a person having: (i) a bachelor’s degree in an exercise related field or mechanical or electrical engineering and (ii) three to five years of industry experience in designing cardiovascular exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34).6 Petitioner also asserts that a person could qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan with less education but more experience or less experience but more education. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). Patent Owner has not taken a position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’340 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner “does not believe construction of any term is necessary to resolve the invalidity challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29–30). Petitioner explains that, as of the filing of the Petition, none of the claim terms recited in the ’340 patent have been construed in a prior proceeding. Id. Patent Owner has not taken a position as to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. On the present record, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends Morris and Ray describe exercise equipment (e.g., treadmills) that detect a user’s presence while using the equipment and present the user’s exercise data on a display while a user is exercising to motivate the user to exercise and improve the user’s exercise experience. Pet. 12. Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings of Morris and Ray by incorporating Ray’s camera and software instructions for validating user exercise data in Morris’ treadmill apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 13. In particular, Petitioner contends Morris provides an express motivation to install and use Ray’s camera for user detection by teaching that “its exercise equipment could be fitted with optical sensor(s).” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 33). Additionally, Petitioner asserts Morris’ treadmill includes an information processing system that processes sensor signals and includes virtual reality content on a screen displayed to the user. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32, 34–36, 50, 56–58, Figs. 6, 11–12C, claims 29–37). Thus, Petitioner contends “the signal processing and display system of Morris had the necessary capabilities to accommodate Ray’s user detection/validation software and implement, with a reasonable expectation of success, its functionalities that included producing and presenting the motivational image of the user exercising.” Id. at 13–14. Additionally, Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Morris and Ray because of “Ray’s express teachings that its user validation/motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Pet. 14 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57). Petitioner asserts incorporating these features into Morris’ treadmill “would have been obvious and produced predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 142–143).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,227,340
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.