- PTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00810 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Rosenberg and Park.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Trademark Office issued a Memorandum setting forth an “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Guidance Memo”).9 The Guidance Memo states that “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Guidance Memo 3 (footnote and emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on all of the parties’ arguments and evidence, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of establishing that claim 1 of the ’110 patent would have been obvious over Rosenberg and Park. Pet. 18–19, 52–73, Prelim. Resp. 6–8, 14–18. In the following sections, we discuss in detail the parties’ current disputes regarding Petitioner’s position that claim 1 would have been obvious over Rosenberg and Park.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard” and that “[t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Preliminary Response and reserves the right to propose a different level of skill should the Board grant institution.” Prelim. Resp. 10. At this stage, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe only those claim terms and phrases necessary to our decision. See, e.g., 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))). At this stage of the proceeding, we need not construe any claim terms and phrases to resolve a controversy.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Enovsys LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00825 · APJ Andrew L Nalven · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Step 1 of Figure 7 begins by obtaining the geographic information of the area to search for possible remote targets. Id. at 8:57–59. In step 2, the next geographic region where a possible search for a PRU is estimated. Id. at 8:64–66. In step 3, a page is sent out to that geographic region for remote units in the region to reveal their location. Id. at 9:2–4. In steps 4 and 5, if remote units are identified in the paged area, that information is forwarded to the network and the process continues to step 7 where the process is aborted. Id. at 9:4–6. Step 6 is performed if no units are identified in the paged area. Id. at 9:6–9. There, a check is done to establish if there are any remaining cells or grids higher up in the chain to be searched, and if so, the process returns to step 2 to search additional geographic areas. Id. at 9:9–12. The iterative process described in Figure 7 is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring forwarding a notification to only one or more PRUs currently located in a specific geographic boundary. Ex. 2001 ¶ 55; see also Ex. 1001, 8:32–54 (describing a grid search technique that may be implemented by the process of Figure 7).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of GPS and related location tracking techniques, or the equivalent.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–30). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proffered definition as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment, which is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and asserted prior art.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are further not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that forwarding notifications to the PRUs only within a specified geographic region renders element 12[D]’s step of verifying whether the PRUs exists within said region unnecessary. Pet. 35 n.8. Rather, we credit Mr. McAlexander who testifies that forwarding notifications to individually pollable geographic boundaries “does not obviate the need for the PRU to identify that the notification has been received or verify its location within the individual geographic boundary before responding.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 155.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,199,726 - Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00643 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Willner and Park; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The main distinction between Petitioner’s ordinarily skilled artisan and Patent Owner’s is that Patent Owner’s definition requires “a mechanical engineering degree” whereas Petitioner’s definition allows for a degree in “mechanical, electrical, or computer engineering.” See Pet. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 13). However, Mr. Kitchen states that he qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art based on Patent Owner’s proffered definition “even without an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering” because he has “over 40 years of experience in the design and development of interactive products, including specifically with respect to handheld gaming devices.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–30). Mr. Kitchen asserts that his experience is in “the same category of products claimed in the ’393 patent and described in the prior art references at issue in this proceeding.” Id. In view of this and based on the complete record before us, we view the parties’ proposals as substantially the same because Petitioner’s proposed definition includes the requisite education Patent Owner’s definition requires. Thus, we find (as we did in the Institution Decision) that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’393 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 20–21 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). More particularly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the education component for the level of ordinary skill in the art for computing gaming devices would be limited to just mechanical engineering. We note that, based on the record and evidence before us, our decision and analysis would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“After reviewing the full record, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe the term “confinement structures,” as it appears in the limitation “a pair of confinement structures” to reach a determination in this proceeding. 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)). However, we will address the parties’ dispute regarding whether the prior art discloses or teaches physical component(s) that hold(s) a computing device within our merits analysis below. 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 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“First, the test for obviousness “is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, . . . but rather whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 11–12 (arguing the same). Second, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed combination would fail “to retain[] computing device 10 in position during normal user operation” because Park’s adjustable bridge “configuration does not allow mobile phone (1) to be seated for stability in the device.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 42; Ex. 2004 ¶ 68). At the outset, we note that Patent Owner’s argument mischaracterizes the disclosure of Park. Instead, we find Park discloses that a “basic configuration of [Park’s] game pad device for a mobile phone according to the present invention” “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 41. Although Park discloses that “mobile phone (1) may come loose during gaming or become detached in severe cases” (id. ¶ 41), we do not view this disclosure to otherwise negate Park’s teaching that its adjustable bridge (30,40) “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Id. We credit Mr. Kitchen’s declaration testimony to that effect. See Ex. 1033 ¶ 47 (declaring that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood this disclosure to mean that a computing device (mobile phone) would have been secured by the device for normal use . . . as part of a handheld gaming device.”).” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner and find more credible Mr. Kitchen’s opinion regarding “normal user operation.” In doing so, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s opinion that Willner’s sidewalls would “function to secure the sides of the computing device and hold it in place” and, “[i]n the combination, Park’s bridge would be adjusted to reduce the length of the bridge and thereby ‘mount’ a computing device by having Willner’s side walls (confinement structures) ‘apply pressure’ to opposing sides of the computing device.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–156 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–41). We note that the ’393 patent operates in a similar manner using a sufficient compressive load to hold a computing device. More particularly, the ’393 patent discloses that [t]he expansion and contraction of the distance between the pair of confinement structures 316, facilitates placement of the computing device 302 between the pair of confinement structures 316, the application of sufficient compressive load being placed on the computing device 302 to securely hold the computing device between the pair of confinement structures 316. Ex. 1001, 10:11–20. Thus, we find Mr. Kitchen’s opinion credible and supported by the complete record. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Willner and Park teaches or suggests “a pair of confinement structures,” as recited by limitation 1[b][1].” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,391,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,391,393 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00698 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–11, 13, and 19–21 were not shown unpatentable because Rauhala does not disclose simultaneous desired and interferer signal-strength determinations, defeating anticipation and the obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we were persuaded, on the preliminary record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals were consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’202 patent and the prior art of record, on balance, we determined that Petitioner’s proposal was a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we therefore adopted it for our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 12–13. For this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’202 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Baker I Decl. ¶¶ 28–32. Our Decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“85:13–16. He admits that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence that would have led a person of ordinary skill to design such a detector. Our Trial Practice Guide cautions against crediting such unsupported testimony: The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data. Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (Nov. 2019).7 We therefore give Dr, Baker’s unsupported testimony on this issue little weight.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the purpose of this decision, we do not need to construe these terms to resolve a dispute.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“requirement.” Pet. Reply 5. We do not agree with Petitioner. We find that the language of the claims supports Patent Owner’s argument that the desired signal and the interferer signal are received together. As discussed infra, claim limitations 7.7 and 7.8 recite determining a signal strength of the interferer signal and determining a signal strength of the desired signal. These determinations must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. See Larson II Decl. ¶ 70; Baker II Decl. ¶¶ 48–49 (explaining that consideration of signal strengths detected at the same time would be “essential”). The specification of the ’202 patent further supports this finding: “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:22–24; see also Figs. 2A, 2B (showing interferer signals and desired signals together).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,524,202 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,202 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00620 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–8, 14–22, and 25 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Tobita obviousness grounds and declining General Plastic denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a relevant technical degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Materials Science, Physics, or the like, and experience in active matrix display design and electroluminescence.” Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 36). Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s proposed definition because it “entails only general ‘circuit design’ experience with no experience in active matrix display design and electroluminescence, the subject matter of the ’593 Patent.” Id. at 17; see also Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 38–39 (Dr. Wolfe’s testimony regarding the same). In particular, Patent Owner argues that “[i]mportant aspects and considerations of the pixel circuit design are unique to the context of active matrix display design and to electroluminescent displays.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 38). Patent Owner additionally notes that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the ITC Investigation adopted Patent Owner’s definition. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2018, 12). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although “[t]he challenged patent pertains generally to the field of OLED displays,” it is directed “more particularly to the circuitry used to drive and control the pixels that comprise the light-generating elements of the display.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 29; see also Ex. 1001, 1:16– 18 (describing the Field of the Invention as relating to “a stage circuit and an organic light emitting display using the same”). Moreover, we note, for example, that claim 1 does not include any limitations directed to “active matrix displays” or any other particular type of display, which suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan need not have had specific experience designing such displays. See Ex. 1001, 9:43–45 (reciting “[a] stage circuit”). In addition, Patent Owner’s proposed definition is imprecise because it does not quantify the amount of experience possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Therefore, at this stage, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because we find it to be more consistent with the teachings of the ’593 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we apply the same construction as the ITC ALJ, i.e., that controlling the voltage of the second node does not require the voltage of the second node to be determined by the first driver alone. This is supported by contrast with another limitation in claim 1, which expressly recites direct control: “the signal of the third input terminal directly controls.” Ex. 1001, 9:58 (emphasis added). This is also supported by a paragraph in the Specification of the ’593 patent explaining that the Specification uses the word “directly” in contexts where the same is intended. Id. at 4:19–26. Further, as noted by the ITC ALJ, the Specification of the ’593 patent states that the second driver “controls the voltage on the first node” where such control is accomplished in conjunction with the outputting unit. Ex. 2018, 31–32 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:60–62, claims 1, 15). This supports the ITC ALJ’s understanding with respect to the first driver, i.e., that control can occur in conjunction with other elements.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Specifically, Petitioner relies on the timing diagram in Figure 21B of Kimura to illustrate the operation of the circuit in Figure 27C. Pet. 19 (reproducing Ex. 1004, Fig. 21B). Petitioner acknowledges that the timing diagram “is not specific to the device of Figure 27C.” Id. Still, Petitioner contends the Figure 27C circuit “would (or at least obviously could) be supplied with input signals in the same manner and with the same timing” because it includes “the same input and output lines and many of the same transistors as Kimura’s other circuits.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–165). According to the timing diagram, the potential of node 13 (V13) is shown at its highest level during period D. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 21B. Petitioner also cites Kimura for teaching that “the potential of the node 13 becomes an H level.” Pet. 18 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 256). Yet Kimura describes the Figure 27C circuit’s operation at period D differently: “[I]n a period D, the potential of the node 13 can be lowered. Therefore, dielectric breakdown or deterioration of the transistor connected to the node 13 (e.g., the transistor 102, the transistor 203, the transistor 205, or the transistor 206) can be prevented.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 286 (emphasis added). And Petitioner cites this very teaching in its analysis of limitation [1-B]. See Pet. 20–21. This inconsistency undermines Petitioner’s argument that “the device of Figure 27C . . . would (or at least obviously could) be supplied with input signals in the same manner and with the same timing.” Id. at 19. In light of this inconsistency, and in the absence of a sufficient explanation as to why Kimura’s teachings about different circuits apply to the Figure 27C circuit on which Petitioner relies, we find Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 to be deficient. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Kimura.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDecided for petitioner
“presents facts that are different from those in General Plastic because Petitioner here did not use a prior Board decision or a prior preliminary response as a roadmap. Given the lack of road-mapping specific to our proceedings, we find that Factor 3 weighs strongly against exercising discretion to deny institution. Further, we note that “factors 1–3 only weigh in favor of discretionary denial when there are ‘road-mapping’ concerns under factor 3 or other concerns under factor 2.” Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00861, Paper 19 at 5 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2022) (precedential) (“Code200”). Although Patent Owner alleges concerns under Factor 2 insofar as Petitioner knew or should have known of the asserted references at the time of the petition in IPR2023-01221 (Prelim. Resp. 9–12; PO Prelim. Sur-reply 2), we find such concerns to be of minimal significance where there is no road-mapping. Thus, we consider Factor 1 in conjunction with Factors 2 and 3 (see Code200 at 5) and find that Factors 1– 3 weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution. Similarly, the timing of the second petition in relation to the filing of the first petition (Factor 4), and when petitioner learned of the prior art (Factor 5), are more pertinent to the situation where the second petition is filed by a party using prior art allegedly newly discovered after receiving the Board’s unfavorable decision, as was the case in General Plastic, or after a preliminary response was filed in the first case. General Plastic at 10. That is not the situation before us here. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 4–9) that the interplay between the instant case and the ITC Investigation implicates the same concerns from General Plastic about abuse or gamesmanship from multiple, staggered petitions. See General Plastic at 16–17. As in Code200, we find that “Patent Owner’s concerns of fairness are outweighed by the benefits to the patent system of improving patent quality by reviewing the merits of the challenges raised in the petitions, which have not been addressed to date.” Code200 at 6. Thus, we determine that Factors 4 and 5 do not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. Regarding Factor 6, Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Board should not expend its finite resources to endorse Petitioner’s second bite at the apple.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Nevertheless, because the earlier proceeding was terminated at Petitioner’s request, the Board has not previously considered the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions, and the Board’s involvement in the parties’ disputes related to the ’593 patent has been minimal up to this juncture. In the absence of meaningful efficiency concerns, we find that Factor 6 does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. For Factor 7, we know of no reason why we could not meet the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination within one year of institution, so we also find that this factor does not weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution. After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, we conclude that the General Plastic factors weigh against exercising our discretion to deny review.” slip op. at 61
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,330,593 - Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00459 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 10–31 are unpatentable under §103 over the asserted combinations involving Chandra or Keohane.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and . . . at least two years’ practical experience with computer networking and computer security.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner asserts that its positions would be the same under either proposal. Id. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as more consistent with the prior art and the ’825 patent, but our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“claims 1, 15, 21, and 27 recite methods in which a first network security appliance of a CSF receives network traffic to inspect, determines whether the traffic was transmitted from a second network security appliance that executed security operations on the traffic, determines network security operations for the first network security appliance to execute based on any security operations executed by the second network security appliance, and executes operations on the traffic. Ex. 1001, 10:58–11:17, 12:31–60, 13:20– 47, 14:13–37. As claimed, network traffic may travel in one direction from a second network security appliance to a first network security appliance. The ’825 patent describes unidirectional traffic as “one embodiment” of the CSF. A first network security appliance receives incoming network traffic and determines if the incoming network traffic is transmitted from a second network security appliance based on the source address of the traffic and determines operations that the second network security appliance executed. Ex. 1001, 2:48–56. In this embodiment, traffic travels in a single incoming direction between network security appliances. Tr. 30:22–31:18. The ’825 patent also describes the “cooperation” in a CSF as “[t]he network packet carrying the flag is transmitted to another member node at the next hop.” Ex. 1001, 6:28–34 (emphasis added); id. at 8:3–8. Traffic always flows from one hop to a next hop along the same path between root 220 at the edge of the network and each particular endpoint (leaf) shown in Figure 2 below. Traffic does not flow along different interconnected paths when it travels from root 220 to an endpoint leaf 240a–240d, 250 as Patent Owner asserts is required of a CSF. PO Resp. 13–15. Figure 2 is “an exemplary topology of a cooperative security fabric (CSF)” with Patent Owner’s annotation of network traffic paths. Ex. 1001, 2:29–31; PO Resp. 16. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to branch 230a to leaf 240a to the blue end node. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to leaf 250 to the red end node. Traffic from the green node travels along a single path to leaf 240d to branch 230b to root 220. Network security appliances only cooperate along a single red, green,” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“(3) Analysis We agree with Petitioner that “the claims only require two appliances and traffic to go from one appliance to the other.” Reply 11. Nothing in the claims or element 1[a] requires network traffic to originate from outside the private network or the CSF. Dr. Black testifies that the background of the ’825 patent describes a need for a CSF to coordinate operations performed on network traffic that is “transmitted to/from the network” to avoid or reduce redundant operations among members of the CSF” (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 44, 50), but Dr. Black describes the claimed network fabric and CSF entirely in the context of controlling network traffic transmitted within the enterprise network topology 200 as illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’825 patent (id. ¶ 52), which we discussed in Section II.B.1. supra and reproduce again below. In Figure 2, Patent Owner annotates paths taken by network traffic within network topology 200 comprising root 220, branches 230a, 230b, and leaves 240a–d, 250 within network 200. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 52. In addition, Chandra’s network 102 is “a collection of individual networks, interconnected with each other and functioning as a single large network.”7 Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. Network 102 can include LANs, WANs, and/or MANs. Id. As a result, network devices 104 located in different networks of network 102 transmit to one another via edge network links 218 within this internetwork of networks 102. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 21–30, Figs. 1, 2; Pet. 22–26. Transmitting and receiving CEs 208, 214 are security-based devices at the edges of different networks in network 102 to control incoming network traffic sent between transmitting and receiving network devices 206, 212 located in different networks. Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. A plurality of CEs can be associated with a single PE to receive incoming network traffic from a transmitting CE. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Thus, network traffic is transmitted from network devices 104 connected to a plurality of CEs that connect to other CEs via edge network link 218 and to other network devices 104 connected to those CEs “along multiple interconnected paths” (see id. ¶¶ 28–30) that satisfies Patent Owner’s definition of CSF (PO Resp. 13). The sending and receiving CEs “constitute multiple cooperating network security appliances” contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 38), as do CEs 208, 214.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Buruganahalli’s topology of devices 50, 52, 54 coordinates security operations that they perform on network data 58 sent from network device 54 to network device 52 to network device 50 from one hop to the next hop. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30–32, 34–36, 38–40, 46–48, Fig. 3. We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to update Chandra’s metadata tag for a multi-CE path to indicate actions taken, as Buruganahalli teaches, to reduce latency and resource waste. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28)). Dr. Franz testifies it would have been obvious to arrange Chandra’s different network security appliance CEs in series so that traffic passed through multiple CEs that performed different security functions in a CSF before reaching a receiving PE, as Chandra and Buruganahalli teach or suggest. Ex. 1019 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125). Patent Owner’s argument that the CEs are not in series does not address Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to place them in series, as Buruganahalli discloses, to perform different security operations on network traffic. Pet. 54; Ex. 1019 ¶ 60; Cf. Sur-reply 20–21. Petitioner contends that Chandra’s system also transmits data packets with updated labels to devices in an extended virtual private network (VPN) shown in Figure 8. Pet. 54. Petitioner asserts it was well known to connect a private network of a remote company site to another network such as an enterprise network using a VPN tunnel, and it would have been obvious to attach the VPN in Figure 8 to a private network as an extension of Figure 2’s private network. Pet. 54–56. Petitioner contends that, in such instances, a receiving CE would transmit data packets with the updated label to a receiving device in an extended network using the transmitting and receiving end configurations shown in Figures 2 and 8 of Chandra. Id. at 54. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to connect Chandra’s Figure 2 private network to Chandra’s Figure 8 VPN network to extend enterprise network communications so the next device in the extended VPN network would be “a next network appliance participating in the CSF” as claimed. Pet. 54–56; Reply 26–27 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 61). We also agree with Dr. Franz who testifies: Contrary to the PO’s assertion that “Petitioner…provides no rationale for why a POSITA would modify Chandra by combining Figures 2 and 8, or explain why a POSITA would reasonably expect it to succeed (POR, 45),” I provided ample reasons why a POSITA would have found it obvious that the VPN in Chandra’s Figure 8 could be attached as an extension to the private network in Chandra’s Figure 2 as illustrated below. In fact, I provided an example of a widely circulated official publication by the U.S. National Security Agency containing a reference architecture that recommended cascading multiple VPN solutions for added security. (Franz. Decl. ¶126-130.) Ex. 1019 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–130).” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,084,825 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,084,825 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00187 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 were not proven unpatentable: Athas does not show the same packets are received, modified, and forwarded; neither obviousness combination teaches execution in response to the client’s execution of the second script.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’457 patent would have had “a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications.” Pet. 14 (citing Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31). For our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s formulation. Institution Dec. 11. Patent Owner has not provided a description of the ordinarily skilled artisan. However, Dr. Almeroth testifies that although he “do[es] not necessarily agree with every aspect of Dr. Williams’s explanation,” he bases his opinions on Dr. Williams’s description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Almeroth Decl. ¶ 36. For this Final Written Decision, therefore, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner 6 Neither party has presented evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. and used previously in our Institution Decision. We find that this formulation is consistent with the ’457 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams. Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“as “the number of packets” intercepted in limitation 1a (see PO Resp. 6–7). Petitioner responds that resolving this argument is not necessary. Pet. Reply 1. We find that whether claim 1 requires the packets intercepted by the network appliance in limitation 1a to be the same packets involved in limitations 1b–1d, Petitioner has not persuasively shown that any same number of packets in Athas that are received at proxy platform 101 are then modified and forwarded as required by limitations 1b–1d, for the reasons discussed below. We agree with Patent Owner that the number of packets in limitations 1b-1d are the same, and, therefore, we find that Petitioner’s citations to Athas do not disclose the sequence of operations recited in claim limitations 1b–1d. Petitioner, therefore, does not demonstrate that Athas anticipates the claim. Specifically, we are not persuaded either by Petitioner’s assertions or Dr. Williams’s testimony that in Athas, the same “number of packets” that are received and modified by Athas’s proxy platform 101 are then forwarded to Athas’s proxy client 107, as required by limitations 1b–1d. PO Resp. 6– 7; 15–20; Almeroth Decl. ¶¶ 76–77. Petitioner does not persuasively address this issue the Petition or in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 2–11, asserting, in a footnote, only that “Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding same versus different packets,” and that “Dr. Williams’s testimony does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.”). Id. at 11 n.4 (citing Ex. 2011, 115:22–117:20, 118:5–12). The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12. There is, therefore, no persuasive evidence of record demonstrating that Athas discloses that the same “number of packets” received at proxy platform 101 are, in a modified form, forwarded to proxy client 107. For example, there is no support in the record for a finding that once the content of packets sent from service platform 109 to proxy platform 101 in Athas is extracted and manipulated to replace non-MWL scripts with MWL scripts and the DOM is generated, modified versions of the same received packets are forwarded to provide the web page to proxy client 107, as opposed to completely new packets. We find no sufficient support for this contention in Dr. Williams’s testimony:” slip op. at 23
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“1b-1d are the same, and, therefore, we find that Petitioner’s citations to Athas do not disclose the sequence of operations recited in claim limitations 1b–1d. Petitioner, therefore, does not demonstrate that Athas anticipates the claim. Specifically, we are not persuaded either by Petitioner’s assertions or Dr. Williams’s testimony that in Athas, the same “number of packets” that are received and modified by Athas’s proxy platform 101 are then forwarded to Athas’s proxy client 107, as required by limitations 1b–1d. PO Resp. 6– 7; 15–20; Almeroth Decl. ¶¶ 76–77. Petitioner does not persuasively address this issue the Petition or in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 2–11, asserting, in a footnote, only that “Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding same versus different packets,” and that “Dr. Williams’s testimony does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.”). Id. at 11 n.4 (citing Ex. 2011, 115:22–117:20, 118:5–12). The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12. There is, therefore, no persuasive evidence of record demonstrating that Athas discloses that the same “number of packets” received at proxy platform 101 are, in a modified form, forwarded to proxy client 107. For example, there is no support in the record for a finding that once the content of packets sent from service platform 109 to proxy platform 101 in Athas is extracted and manipulated to replace non-MWL scripts with MWL scripts and the DOM is generated, modified versions of the same received packets are forwarded to provide the web page to proxy client 107, as opposed to completely new packets. We find no sufficient support for this contention in Dr. Williams’s testimony:” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,924,457 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,924,457 - Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00213 · APJ Daniel Kazhdan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review, see 35 U.S.C. § 314, and she delegated that authority to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The Board may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the 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). We determine that the Petition in this case does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims. We, therefore, deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use. A higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). The Preliminary Response does not provide a description of the person of ordinary skill in the art or dispute Petitioner’s description. Patent Owner’s expert “accept[ed] Dr. Bhattacharjee’s proposed qualifications of a [skilled artisan]” for purposes of his declaration. Ex. 2003 ¶ 20. For purposes of assessing institution, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as it is consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding. C. Claim construction slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The Preliminary Response argues that limitations [1A] and [1B-2] “require storing two or more shares generated from a dataset on two or more physical storage devices.” Prelim. Resp. 5. This, purportedly, is “a central feature” of the invention. Id.; see generally id. at 4–7. The relevant limitations recite: “[1A] a plurality of physical storage devices storing thereon a plurality of shares, the plurality of shares being associated with at least one session key used to secure a dataset” and a secure storage system configured to “[1B-2] generate the plurality of shares for storage on the plurality of physical storage devices by performing a securing operation on the dataset received from the client device and distributing the dataset in the shares.” See Ex. 1001 98:3–6, 98:12–15. As the Preliminary Response notes, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “‘a plurality of’ means ‘at least two of.’” SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd., 983 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing cases); Prelim. Resp. 5. As the Preliminary Response further notes, the Petition itself seems to interpret the claims as requiring storage on at least two physical storage devices. Prelim. Resp. 7. Specifically, the Petition argues that “Dickinson-Takeda . . . stores encryption results . . . on at least two of storage devices D1-D4.” Id. (quoting Pet. 68); see Ex. 2003 ¶ 19. Implicit in this is the need for at least two separate physical storage devices. Thus, we conclude that the claims require storing the shares among two or more physical storage devices.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“this decision we construe limitations [1A] and [1B-2] together to require storing two shares among at least two physical storage devices. Petitioner never addresses this requirement, and we find this to be a fatal flaw. According to Petitioner, Takeda teaches limitations [1A] and [1B-2] as follows: “Takeda’s technique involves dividing plaintext – which is any non-encrypted (i.e., unciphered) information – into blocks, ciphering different blocks using different ‘ciphering attributes’ (e.g., ciphering keys and/or ciphering algorithms), and outputting the ciphered blocks with the ciphering attributes.” Pet. 10; see generally id. at 10–16, 28–31, 39–40. Patent Owner responds that “Takeda’s blocks are stored together in a single storage device,” and this does not disclose or suggest storing the shares on at least two physical storage devices. Prelim. Resp. 8; see id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 51–53). We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Takeda discloses or suggests storing data on physically separable storage devices. The Petition points to Takeda’s teaching that the data is “divided into blocks.” Pet. 11. As Patent Owner notes, Takeda teaches that these blocks are all stored on a single, physical device. Prelim. Resp. 8. Specifically, Takeda teaches that “[t]he ciphertext is stored in the removable recording medium 39 or the storage device 37.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 92.5 We determine that Takeda does not teach or suggest storing this data in at least two separate media, at least two separate storage devices, or at least one of each. Correspondingly, Takeda’s Figures show data blocks next to each other—i.e., on one physical device. See id. at Figs. 1–4. The Petition does not suggest that Ophir teaches storing shares among different physical storage devices. As the Petition itself notes, Ophir seems to use a single “mediator [to] provide[] secure virtual storage to data clients.” Pet. 9 (quoting Ex. 1007 Abstract) (emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,338,140 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2023-01442 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under either anticipation ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the 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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. In addition, for the reasons stated on the merits of the Petition, we do not reach the question of whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We, therefore, deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art “would have been an individual who, as of July 18, 2002, the filing date of the ’667 Patent, had either: (1) a Bachelor’s Degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and at least one year of related practical experience; or (2) at least four years of practical experience in data management.” Pet. 9 (citing Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not provide a description of the person of ordinary skill or dispute Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner “gives the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification and prosecution history as would have been read by a [person of ordinary skill].” Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not comment on claim construction. We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We do not see the need to construe claim terms to resolve the issues in dispute. E. Description of the Prior Art References” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“The Federal Circuit addressed the legal standard for anticipation in Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a prior art reference will anticipate if it ‘disclose[s] each and every element of the claimed invention . . . arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.’” 815 F.3d at 1341 (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,020,667
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.