- PTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · PGR2022-00052 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 1–27 and denied substitute claims 28–51 because the original disclosure lacked written-description support for the claimed CSP limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, with the exclusion of “at least” because it introduces ambiguity. Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner “does not dispute the Board’s findings on the qualifications of a POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art] for purposes of this proceeding.” See RMTA 13. We determine that Petitioner’s definition, with the exclusion of “at least,” is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’034 patent and we use this level of skill here in the evaluation of the Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that “claim construction is not necessary” and that “the meaning of the claims would be easily understood by a POSA.” RMTA 13. In the Petition, Petitioner proposed constructions for the terms “client device” and “first server,” and the original claims were rendered obvious under this construction. Pet. 23–27. Petitioner does not assert that the substitute claims of the Revised Motion to Amend are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art or are patent ineligible. See generally RMTA Opp. Nor does Petitioner’s patentability challenge of the substitute claims contend that express construction is needed. See generally id. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that express claim construction is unnecessary. We need only construe terms that are necessary to resolve disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“written description requirement. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989); All Dental Prodx LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., 309 F.3d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The issue here, however, is whether the disclosure of the ’034 patent would have reasonably conveyed to a person of ordinary skill that the inventors had possession of the CSP Limitations. Ariad, 598” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“to cancelling claims 1–27; and deny-in-part the Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claims 28–51. In summary: Motion to Amend Outcome Claim(s) Original Claims Cancelled by Amendment 1–27 Substitute Claims Proposed in the Amendment 28–51 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Granted Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,272,034 - PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00973 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claim 1 based on compelling and reasonably likely obviousness challenges over Redlich alone and Redlich with Ozzie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Redlich is the same or substantially the same as the ’825 and ’047 patents. Prelim. Resp. 6–11. In contrast to Redlich, the ’825 and’047 patents are not prior art to the ’244 patent. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing that the ’825 and ’047 patents were issued after the ’244 patent’s filing date and are not prior art to the ’244 patent under pre-AIA §§ 102(a), (b), or (e). Pet. Reply 1–2 & n.1 (timelines); see PO Sur-reply 1 (reproducing Petitioner’s timelines). Moreover, Patent Owner points to nothing in the ’244 patent’s file history that would indicate the Examiner considered or applied the ’825 and ’047 patents or the corresponding pre-issuance publications as prior art under §§ 102 or 103. As stated above, Redlich is not listed in the ’244 patent under “References Cited,” and the same is true for the ’825 and ’047 patents and the pre-issuance publication of the ’047 patent. Ex. 1001, code (56). Although the ’825 and ’047 patents were the basis for non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections that were overcome with a terminal disclaimer (Ex. 1002, Part 5, 2375–77, 2384, 2390), the Examiner made no prior art rejection under §§ 102 or 103 based on these patents or the corresponding pre-issuance publications. We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition presents the same arguments as considered by the Office during examination. Prelim. Resp. 2, 6, 12–15. Petitioner’s obviousness challenge based on Redlich and Ozzie is substantially different from the Examiner’s § 103 rejection based on Fahlman and Hoffberg. Patent Owner argues that teaching cloud-based computing and rely on the same rationale for combining the prior art teachings. Id. at 12–14. But Patent Owner makes no argument that Fahlman (cited by the Examiner) is the same or substantially the same as Redlich (relied on by Petitioner). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention that Redlich discloses features that were added to the claims to obtain allowance over Fahlman. Pet. 5–8. Petitioner’s undisputed contention distinguishes the obviousness challenge based on Redlich and Ozzie from the Examiner’s § 103 rejection based on Fahlman and Hoffberg. In sum, we determine that the Petition is not based on the same or” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitutedDenied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factors 1 and 3 are neutral, factors 2 and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Accordingly, following CommScope, where, as here, our analysis of the first five Fintiv factors favors denial of institution, we address the merits of the Petition to determine whether the merits are compelling. V. COMPELLING MERITS ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard As discussed infra, “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo at 4. The Guidance Memo does not change the statutory standard for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Instead, a determination of compelling merits will outweigh the other Fintiv factors,” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“VI. REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) For the reasons discussed in Section V above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its challenge to claim 1 of the ’244 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review. VII. ORDER It is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claim 1 of the ’244 patent is instituted commencing on the entry date of this Decision; and” slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesOther
“The patent statute provides that “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 (pre-AIA). This statutory provision presumptively does not apply to a claim term that lacks the word “means,” but the presumption can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Under our rules, a petition must provide a construction for a means- specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104. Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms it identifies as means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 11–15. Patent Owner does not address claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed constructions, as follows. Claim term Function Corresponding structure” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,468,244 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00970 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1, 5, 25, 26, 30, and 50 because the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial and the Petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factors 1 and 3 are neutral, factors 2 and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“§ 42.4(a) (2023). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not institute an inter partes review (also “IPR”) unless the information presented in the petition “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.” However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“provided compelling evidence to support its contention that Bossemeyer, alone or in combination with Merenda, teaches “permitting full or partial reconstruction of said data with corresponding extracted data and remainder data after accessing said respective extract stores” recited in claims 1 and 29.5 5 In view of this determination, we do not need to address Patent Owner’s additional argument that Bossemeyer is not analogous art to the ’482 patent. Prelim. Resp. 16–24. Similarly, we do not need to address Patent Owner’s additional argument that a person of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to combine Merenda with Bossemeyer. Prelim. Resp. 50–61.” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,552,482 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00972 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 31, 36, and 41, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv because the merits were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factors 1 and 3 are neutral, factors 2 and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Accordingly, following CommScope, where, as here, our analysis of the first five Fintiv factors favors denial of institution. we address the merits of the Petition to determine whether the merits are compelling.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Resp. 34–35. We agree with Patent Owner that Merenda’s “parsing” does not disclose extracting, i.e., filtering or separating, security sensitive information from source data to obtain extracted data. Id. at 42. Instead, Merenda discloses storing data entered in empty fields pre-designated as “private” separately from data entered in fields pre-designated “public.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 23, 24, 26, 31, Figs. 1–3. No extracting takes place because the customer has already separated the private data from the public data in filling out the web form and entering data in separate fields that were previously designated either private or public. See Easttom Decl. ¶¶ 43–49 (discussing Merenda). We agree with Dr. Easttom’s analogy to an airport security process: Merenda works a bit like standard versus pre-check security at the airport. Before the security lines form, the official is trained to recognize that boarding passes with the green “pre-check” icon may enter the pre-check security line, and that those with boarding passes missing that icon should go to the regular security line. This step is analogous to what Merenda describes as its “parsed” step, meaning parsing in advance what kinds of information/boarding passes will qualify for different treatment. As people (like individual items of information) arrive, depending on what’s on their boarding pass, they go directly to either the pre-check security line (like the private data set) or the standard security line (like the public data set). Id. ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Petitioner presents no compelling argument that Merenda’s disclosure of storing data entered in fields pre-designated as “private” separately from data entered in fields pre-designated “public” discloses or suggests the extracting step.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of data storage systems and data security as of November 13, 2000.” Pet. 6 (citing Zadok Decl. ¶¶ 114, 115). Petitioner adds that “[l]ess professional experience can be substituted by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner chooses not to state a position on this issue. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the art before us.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1006 ¶ 23 (emphasis added). It does not appear that Petitioner is relying on Merenda’s “sophisticated” notion of data parsing to teach or suggest the extracting limitation. See Pet. 31 (quoting from Merenda paragraph 23, describing only “simplistic” parsing). In any event, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]his more sophisticated version of ‘parsing’ doesn’t remove anything, it combines data fields.” Prelim. Resp. 34; Easttom Decl. ¶ 55. Merenda’s “simplistic” version of parsing fares no better. Prelim. Resp. 34–35. We agree with Patent Owner that Merenda’s “parsing” does not disclose extracting, i.e., filtering or separating, security sensitive information from source data to obtain extracted data. Id. at 42. Instead, Merenda discloses storing data entered in empty fields pre-designated as “private” separately from data entered in fields pre-designated “public.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 23, 24, 26, 31, Figs. 1–3. No extracting takes place because the customer has already separated the private data from the public data in filling out the web form and entering data in separate fields that were previously designated either private or public. See Easttom Decl. ¶¶ 43–49 (discussing Merenda). We agree with Dr. Easttom’s analogy to an airport security process: Merenda works a bit like standard versus pre-check security at the airport. Before the security lines form, the official is trained to recognize that boarding passes with the green “pre-check” icon may enter the pre-check security line, and that those with boarding passes missing that icon should go to the regular security line. This step is analogous to what Merenda describes as its “parsed” step, meaning parsing in advance what kinds of information/boarding passes will qualify for different treatment. As people (like individual items of information) arrive, depending on what’s on their boarding pass, they go directly to either the pre-check security line (like the private data set) or the standard security line (like the public data set).” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,958,268 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01093 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 2, 4, and 18 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.” However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“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). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner reports that it “believes that no special constructions are necessary to assess whether the challenged claims are unpatentable over the asserted prior art.” Pet. 5 (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 68). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position or discuss claim construction. Therefore, we determine there are no claim terms that need to be construed at this stage.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“patent would have possessed “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline,” and would have had “two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems,” with additional education supplementing “practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Baker Decl. ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. We regard Petitioner’s description as consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,201,500 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 8, 2024 · IPR2023-01092 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 23–31 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs slightly against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Accordingly, following CommScope, where, as here, our analysis of the first five Fintiv factors favors denial of institution, we address the merits of the Petition to determine whether the merits are compelling.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“the Fintiv factors. As discussed above, we have determined that factors 1–5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution. Moreover, we have further determined that the Petition does not show compelling evidence of unpatentability under factor 6. We therefore conclude that the evidence of record favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. V. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, Preliminary Sur-reply, and the accompanying evidence, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review challenging claims 23–31 of the ’500 patent. VI. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot reached
“device.” Instead, the output current in Okada is determined in steps 6–12 of the flowchart, where the receiver transmits and the transmitter receives power consumption information derived from a code stored on the device being charged. Prelim. Resp. 28–29; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 69–73. The transmitter adjusts the power to one of three levels, a one-time selection that remains for the duration of the charging. Prelim. Resp. 28–29. We, therefore, do not find compelling evidence that Okada meets this claim element. Nor are we convinced by Petitioner’s “modifications” to Okada. Pet. 58 (referring to annotated Fig. 3). In Petitioner’s modified Okada system, the receiver circuit would “periodically communicate information corresponding to an output voltage or current of the receiver rectifier circuit to cradle 4.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Petitioner points to the testimony of its expert, Dr. Baker. Id. (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 210). We do not find that there is compelling evidence that Okada’s “carrier wave” would have enabled cradle 4 to ‘regulate in a closed loop manner the output voltage or current of the receiver rectifier circuit during the charging or powering of the portable device.’” Id. (emphasis omitted). We find Dr. Baker’s testimony confusing and, ultimately, not compelling. Instead of setting forth his support for his opinion, he incorporates by reference over 100 pages of his prior testimony. See Baker Decl. ¶ 210 (incorporating prior analysis for limitations 23(a)- 23(h) in Sections IX.A.1(a)–1(h) and analysis and discussions in Sections VIII.A–E). Patent Owner cites several instances of this lack of particularity in the Petition, and we agree. See Prelim. Resp. 22–25. Dr. Baker’s testimony similarly lacks focus and deprives us of a fair opportunity to assess the basis for his testimony. Our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)9 provides the following guidance on presenting cases and warns against lack of focus: Although parties are given wide latitude in how they present their cases, the Board’s experience is that the presentation of an overwhelming number of issues tends to detract from the argument being presented, and can otherwise cause meritorious issues to be missed or discounted. Thus, parties should avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record. Id. at 39 (emphasis added). Petitioner has failed to follow this guidance throughout its presentation. As a consequence, we find it difficult to discern compelling evidence in Petitioner’s argument for why Okada should be modified to provide closed-loop operation.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“required by the claim would require the transmitter to regulate. But the Okada drive circuit . . . as described is not designed for this type of regulation.” Prelim. Resp. 30. As Patent Owner explains, “Okada teaches simply choosing one of three power levels through the use of a multi-tapped primary side coil.” Id. Modifying Okada would require “additional circuitry and control mechanisms required for closed loop regulation.” Id. Petitioner fails to provide compelling evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have modified Okada’s open-loop circuitry and controls employing a multitap helical coil, described supra, for closed-loop operation such as that disclosed in Berghegger, which operates on entirely different principles. We are not convinced that Petitioner provides a sufficiently compelling motivation to import closed-loop operation into Okada’s open-loop system. The Supreme Court has warned against “slipping into use of hindsight.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421(quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 36). In this regard, the Federal Circuit has said that “combinations that change the basic principles under which the [prior art] was designed to operate, . . . may fail to support a conclusion of obviousness.” Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG, 600 Fed. Appx. 755, 758 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Ratti, 46 CCPA 976, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (1959), In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)) (internal quotation marks and cites omitted) (alterations in original). For the reasons given, we are not persuaded that Petitioner presents a compelling reason to modify Okada for closed-loop operation in the manner suggested by Dr. Baker.” slip op. at 33
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,201,500 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digitaldoors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00967 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claim 81 because the Fintiv factors favored denial and the Petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factors 1 and 3 are neutral, factors 2 and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“compelling-merits question requires a higher standard of proof, ‘highly likely to prevail,’ than the statutory standard for institution, ‘reasonably likely to prevail.’” Prelim. Resp. 48. Patent Owner asserts that the Petition is deficient because Bossemeyer is not analogous art to the ’825 patent. Id. at 2, 16–23. Patent Owner contends also that Bossemeyer and Glick fail to teach the claimed “extracted data” and “reconstruction” claim elements discussed infra. Id. at 2, 23–41. Finally, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to provide sufficient motivation to combine Bossemeyer and Glick. Id. at 42–47. slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther
“repeatedly refers to Bossemeyer’s “partitioned” database server and attempts to equate “partitioning” with “extraction.” See, e.g., Pet. 35 (“Specifically, in Bossemeyer, user data is partitioned, e.g., extracted, into limited access information and/or proprietary information, and public information.”) (color highlighting omitted). We do not find this argument compelling. We agree with Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Easttom, who testifies, “a partitioned memory does not imply or suggest extraction.” Easttom Decl. ¶ 29. As Dr. Easttom explains, a partitioned memory “merely refers to memory with different areas reserved for different types of information.” Id.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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))). construction (Pet. 11) and Patent Owner’s choice not to state its position on claim construction. We determine we need not expressly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,313,825 - Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00735 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable because the Snavely-based combinations did not teach a “primary oblique image” as construed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s construction of the term “primary oblique image” as “a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” This construction is supported by the ’518 patent Specification, which includes a listing of “Terminology” that contains the following definition for the term “primary oblique image”: Primary oblique image—a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images. The primary oblique image can also be a master image. Ex. 1001, 6:25:31–34.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the proposed combination includes a “primary oblique image” as properly construed. As discussed above, we construe the term “primary oblique image” to require “a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” See supra § II.A.1(b). In its papers, Petitioner does not demonstrate that Snavely discloses a “primary oblique image” that can be considered “in front of” the other displayed images. To the contrary, we agree with and find credible Dr. Bajaj’s testimony that the “main view” of Snavely’s Figure 5, which Petitioner points to as the “primary oblique image,” is “behind the other displayed images in overlay panes,” such as the information pane, thumbnail pane, and map pane, and “therefore, necessarily cannot be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 60; see Ex. 1004, Fig. 5; PO Resp. 26. Our conclusion is also supported by the fact that Snavely refers to the information, map, and thumbnail panes as “overlay panes.” Ex. 1004, 5 (“The components of this window are the main view, which fills the window, and three overlay panes: an information and search pane on the left, a thumbnail pane along the bottom, and a map pane in the upper-right corner.”). We agree with and find credible Dr. Bajaj’s testimony that Snavely’s description of these panes as “overlay” panes confirms that “the main view image is behind the images shown in the map pane, the information pane, and the thumbnail pane.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 61 (citing Ex. 1004, 5). Additional support is found in Dr. Forsyth’s deposition testimony, where he explained that one of ordinary skill would have understood “overlay panes” to be “on top of” a main display:” slip op. at 38
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“E. Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude Patent Owner filed a Motion to Strike certain portions of the Third Munford Declaration (Exhibit 1020) and its Appendices, which Petitioner submitted to show that Snavely and Irani were publicly accessible before the critical date of the ’518 patent. Paper 30. Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude certain Appendices of the Second Munford Declaration (Exhibit 1016) and Third Munford Declaration, which Petitioner also submitted to show public accessibility of Snavely and Irani. Paper 35. Because, as discussed above, we find that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Snavely, Balfour, Irani, and Yelton, we need not reach whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Snavely and Irani were publicly accessible before the critical date. We, therefore, deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 8,593,518 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,593,518 - Vector Flow, Inc. v. Hid Global CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 17, 2023 · IPR2023-00353 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 11–15, exercising § 314(a) discretion based on the parallel litigation’s timing, investment, and issue overlap.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Although we agree with Patent Owner that a stay appears unlikely even if we institute trial, there has been no actual denial of a stay as contemplated by Fintiv to weigh this factor against exercising discretion to deny institution. See Fintiv at 6–7. Also, we do not understand the statements in CAO Lighting Patent Owner highlights as setting forth a general policy by the district judge. Rather, in that case, although the timing and issue overlap factors weighed against granting a stay, the court considered other factors as well. See CAO Lighting, 2022 WL 17752270 at *2. We accordingly treat this factor as neutral.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyOther
“Importantly, Petitioner never advances any firm position on how the terms “unique” and “exclusively” should properly be understood in this context, limiting the basis on which we might fully evaluate Petitioner’s argument. Instead, Petitioner’s general position is that it “does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time for this IPR.” Pet. 14. More specifically, Petitioner asserts that “it is possible” that the terms “may be interpreted to require that a defined user profile have access privileges and credentials that are unique and exclusive to the underlying user, e.g., which are not shared by any other user or user profile in the system.” Id. at 40 (emphases added). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Madisetti, offers no clarification. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 103 (asserting that “it is possible that the words ‘unique’ and ‘exclusively’ could be interpreted” in the same way). Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s speculation as to the “possible” interpretation of the terms. Prelim. Resp. 21–26. But we need not resolve that disagreement to conclude that Petitioner’s analysis fails to articulate a “compelling” meritorious challenge. A conclusion of unpatentability cannot “plainly” follow from an analysis that declines to offer nothing more than “possibilities” as to how the claims might be understood.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“6 Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in software engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two years’ experience in distributed or network-based computer systems, and would have had a working knowledge about various ways to receive data from network-connected devices (such as sensors) and then process and/or act upon that data as needed.” Pet. 11. Petitioner adds that “[a] person could also have qualified with more education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. Petitioner supports its articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art with testimony by Dr. Madisetti. Ex. 1003 ¶ 16. Patent Owner does not state whether it agrees or disagrees with Petitioner’s proposal. Nevertheless, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art and accordingly apply 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 24
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,234,704 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc And Intent Iq, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00227 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 36 and 37 as time-barred under § 315(b), and denied the motion for joinder as moot.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDenied
“instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Patent Owner served Petitioner with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’398 Patent in September 2021. Ex. 1016. Petitioner filed the Petition more than one year later on November 18, 2022. Pet. 80. Petitioner relies on its request to join the Meta IPR to avoid the time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Pet. 9 (“Because Petitioner files an accompanying motion for” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“In any event, in addition to the mootness of Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder due to termination of the Meta IPR, we are not persuaded that joinder would have been appropriate. More specifically, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that “joinder will have little, if any impact on the Meta IPR because . . . the schedule would be unaffected.” Mot. 3; see also Mot. 4 (“Joinder will not affect the schedule in the Meta IPR.”). We note that stipulated Due Date 2 for filing a reply in the Meta IPR was May 2, 2023. See IPR2022-00773, Paper 14. In view of the fact that stipulated Due Date 2 in the Meta IPR has passed, and no reply has been filed in the Meta IPR, Petitioner does not sufficiently address how “the requested joinder will not create any additional burden for the Patent Owner or the Board and will not require any additional time or resources.” Pet. Prelim. Reply 1. As pointed out by Patent Owner, “even if this proceeding went forward by essentially ‘picking up’ where the Meta . . . IPR left off, the existing schedule [of the Meta IPR] would need to be pushed back significantly, to allow time after institution for Petitioner[] to depose Patent Owner’s expert and prepare a reply.” PO Prelim. Sur-Reply 2. Because Petitioner does not meaningfully address the impact joinder would have had on the Meta IPR schedule, joinder also would not have been appropriate.” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,677,398
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.