- Microsoft Corporation v. Daedalus Blue, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00831 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–25 were shown unpatentable: claims 15–21 and 23–25 as obvious over Gelb and Tivoli, and claim 22 as obvious over Gelb, Tivoli, and Callaghan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We begin with the language of the independent challenged claims. Claim 15 recites “[a] method for handling files within a policy-based data management system, the method comprising.” Ex. 1001, 16:21–22. Claim 23 recites “[a] storage device storing computer code executable by a processor to carry out a method comprising.” Id. at 16:61–62. The remaining limitations of the independent claims are the same and directed to (1) providing a policy set with at least one service class rule; (2) receiving one or more attributes of a file from one of a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at least two different computing platforms; (3) applying the service class rule to the file to assign a service class to the file; and (4) conducting operations on the file in a manner according to the service class. Id. at 16:23–31, 16:63–17:4. The involved claims do not recite a “distributed storage system,” a “storage area network system,” or a “networked, distributed system [environment].” Thus, even if Patent Owner were correct that an invention that involves a networked, distributed system environment dictates that the plurality of clients also be in the networked environment, the claims themselves don’t require a networked, distributed system environment. Indeed, the preamble of claim 23 recites “a storage device,” and the preamble of claim 15 recites a “data management system,” terms that are much broader than those the Patent Owner uses to describe “the invention.” PO Resp. 8–10. Although Patent Owner never explains what “clients in a networked environment” means, Dr. White testifies that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ‘plurality of clients’ to refer to clients in a networked distributed systems environment, such that each challenged claim requires a networked environment where clients communicate through a network.” Ex. 2024 ¶ 50. But, again, there is nothing in the claims that recites a “networked distributed systems environment,” a “networked environment,” or “clients communicating through a network.” The method claims are directed to performing certain steps to a file from one of a plurality of clients. No networking or clients communicating through a network is claimed or even shown to be relevant to what is claimed. Indeed, in urging us to narrowly construe the term “plurality of clients,” Patent Owner does not discuss the claim language at all. PO Resp. 8–10. But, the name of the game is the claim. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, Patent Owner fails to direct us to anything in the claim language itself that would support Patent Owner’s construction of “plurality of clients,” and we find nothing that supports the argument.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“two different computing platforms.” Patent Owner contends that the limitation “computing platforms” should be construed to mean “operating systems.” PO Resp. 10–12. Petitioner disagrees and argues that “computing platforms” should be construed to mean “the combination of computer hardware and an operating system.” Pet. Reply 4–6. We understand that resolution of this issue is relevant only to Petitioner’s challenge based on Devarakonda. PO Resp. 2–3, 38–39 (arguing that Gelb alone fails to teach a plurality of clients but not addressing Gelb in combination with Tivoli), 55– 59 (arguing that Devarakonda fails to disclose clients that comprise at least two different operating systems); Pet. Reply 15–16; Tr. 5:16–22, 7:24–8:3, 25:22–26:23. For reasons explained below, we need not decide Petitioner’s challenge based on Devarakonda. Accordingly, for purposes of our Decision, we need not construe “computing platforms.” Other Terms We need not otherwise construe any other terms in the claims. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 15–21 and 23–25 over Gelb and Tivoli” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner, relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Christopher Jules White, argues that a POSITA would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, along with two years of experience in the design, operation, or control of networked data management systems, and/or distributed systems.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2024 ¶ 47). Patent Owner further argues that “Dr. White’s opinions and the arguments in this paper apply under either proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2024 ¶ 49). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill except that we delete the phrase “at least” to avoid ambiguity in the definition of the level of skill. Patent Owner’s proposed level overlaps substantially with Petitioner’s proposed level. Even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of qualifications, the outcome would remain the same.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“construction for “plurality of clients” to mean “clients in a networked environment.” Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that the claims reflect that the ’132 patent’s field of endeavor is distributed storage systems. During oral argument, Patent Owner represented that its “analogous art argument depends on the construction of clients in a networked environment . . . for the first prong.” Tr. 39:20–40:11; see also Sur-Reply 7–8 (“[t]he lack of clients in a networked environment takes Gelb’s single-machine mainframe out of the ’132 Patent’s field of endeavor of distributed storage systems, which involves networked computers”). Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner has failed to show that Gelb is not relevant to the obviousness analysis and agree with Petitioner that “Gelb’s teachings align closely to the subject matter of the ’132 Patent and therefore are analogous.” Pet. Reply 6.9” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,671,132 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,671,132 - Momentum Dynamics Corporation v. Witricity CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 12, 2022 · IPR2021-01127 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable because Kanno anticipates them and renders them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’635 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill, except that we delete the phrase “at least” to avoid including an expert in the definition of the level of skill.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The plain language of claim 1 is expansive, requiring only that the partially cancelled first magnetic field is “outside a spatial region through which power is transferred from the first source magnetic resonator to the device magnetic resonator.” The claim does not refer to a specific type of radiation, let alone far field radiation. The claim drafter deliberately chose the broader term “first magnetic field” rather than specifying “far field radiation.” We find nothing in the claim that points to a more restrictive interpretation of “first magnetic field.” The specification does not limit the partially canceled first magnetic field to far field radiation either, as it expressly contemplates that “the fields that need to be minimized or reduced can be either the far-field, or the near field (if the wavelength is much larger than the distance between the wireless power transfer system to the point of interest).” Ex. 1001, 51:33–37 (emphasis added). The specification could not be any plainer than this— referring explicitly to reducing the far field “or the near field.” Id.5” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s arguments rely on a claim construction that we have not adopted. And Kanno discloses at least near-field cancellation by disclosing, for example, that angles “within the range of 90 to 180 degrees . . . minimized leakage of electromagnetic waves into the surrounding space effectively.” Ex. 1005, 28:36–41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 28:18–42), 107 (similar), 111 (similar). Patent Owner does not dispute that Kanno teaches near-field cancellation. See, e.g., PO Resp. 9 (“reducing ‘near field strength’ as described in Kanno”). Thus, under the correct construction of this limitation as encompassing near-field radiation, far-field radiation, or both, we agree that Kanno teaches it. Not only that, but Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s Reply argument that Kanno also discloses the same far-field cancellation as the ’635 patent, as Patent Owner neither filed a sur-reply nor addressed Petitioner’s Reply argument at the oral hearing. See Tr. 14:20–21 (resting on the briefs). And we agree with Petitioner’s argument, as supported by the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Arnold, that even under Patent Owner’s incorrect construction, Kanno teaches this limitation. Reply 6–7 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–15). Dr. Arnold asserts that “[a] reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic near field generally corresponds with a reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic far field.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 114. Dr. Arnold explains in detail how these near and far fields relate to one another as follows: The term “near field” is a technical term that refers to the electromagnetic near field of an antenna, as opposed to the radiative “far field”. The near field for an electromagnetically short antenna is defined as a region within one electromagnetic wavelength of the antenna. The electrical frequency used in the real-world implementation of the power generator is 3 MHz. Id. 27:44-48. A frequency of 3 MHz corresponds to an electromagnetic wavelength of 100 meters. Here, the measurement distance of 5 meters is well within the near field range of 100 meters, and constitutes a near field measurement. A reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic near field generally corresponds with a reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic far field Id. ¶ 114. In other words, if a field closer to an antenna is reduced, then the field farther from the antenna will be reduced too. This fact is unremarkable, as Dr. Arnold explains, “[t]he principles behind magnetic resonators to wirelessly transfer power have been known for over a century.” Id. ¶ 24.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Even in light of Patent Owner’s arguments, which we address below, we agree with Petitioner. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kanno’s Example 1 with its fundamental arrangement because the specific details in Example 1 and test data would have indicated to the skilled artisan the desirability of combining these portions of Kanno. As Dr. Arnold persuasively testifies, “a POSA would have been motivated to look to Example 1 because it provides those specific implementation details for circuit component types and values, as well as test data showing that the power generator achieves high power transfer efficiency while minimizing electromagnetic field leakage.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 150. He further testifies, “given that Kanno describes ‘Example 1’ as a real-world implementation, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success that the power generator using those implementation details would work.” Id. We agree and credit this unrebutted testimony in support of Petitioner’s motivation to combine separate portions of Kanno.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,306,635 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,306,635 - PTAB · Sep 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00457 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, 23, 25, and 27, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Office during the prosecution of the ’440 patent in an IDS on November 24, 2014” and “the Examiner initialed Lahetkangas as being considered.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Pet. 17; Ex. 1002, 69; Ex. 1011), 33. We agree that Lahetkangas was previously presented to the Office during prosecution of the ’440 patent. Ex. 1001, code (56); Ex. 1002, 69; see also Pet. 17 (Petitioner acknowledging that Lahetkangas was cited in an IDS). Accordingly, we determine that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. 3. Part Two of the Advanced Bionics Framework Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has failed to show material error by the Examiner during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 51. We disagree. As Petitioner points out, although the Examiner considered Lahetkangas in an IDS, Lahetkangas was not discussed in any Office Action or Response. Pet. 17–18. We find that Lahetkangas was not extensively evaluated during examination and was not the basis for a rejection. Petitioner has presented a sufficient showing that the Examiner overlooked disclosures in Lahetkangas that render obvious the challenged claims. See infra. We, therefore, agree with Petitioner that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Pet. 18–19.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“an assessment as to the level of ordinary skill in the art and the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill at the time of the ’440 patent. See Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Dr. Kakaes states that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would be someone who had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, Physics or equivalent.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Citing Dr. Kakaes, Petitioner further states that the POSITA would have also had “three to five years of experience working with wireless digital communication systems” and that “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not propose an alternative assessment. See generally Prelim. Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Claim 18 depends from claim 11 and includes a similar limitation. Petitioner provides reasons for employing Wang’s “extended or aggressive MCS table (i.e., a second MCS table).” Pet. 65–70. We have reviewed Petitioner’s showing for dependent claims 8 and 18 and find such showing sufficiently persuasive at this stage of the proceeding. Id. Patent Owner does not contest claims 8 and 18 separately. Prelim. Resp. 63–64. We conclude that, based on the totality of the arguments and evidence currently in the record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown, for purposes of institution, that Lahetkangas and Wang with or without LTE TS 36.213 teach or suggest the limitations of claims 8 and 18, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references in the manner Petitioner proposes. Accordingly, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that challenged claims 8 and 18 would have been obvious over Lahetkangas and Wang with or without LTE TS 36.213.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,509,440 - Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00348 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Agiwal and Abedini were entitled to their provisional priority dates, leaving no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–15.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims, and we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Fatal to the Petition, though, Petitioner did not establish that the subject matter relied upon for prior art was effectively filed in the provisional applications. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2), 102(d). Under the AIA, a provisional application must “describe[] the subject matter” relied upon as prior art in the reference patent. 35 U.S.C. §102(d); see also MPEP § 2154.01(b). Petitioner does not assert, much less show, that the provisional applications satisfy the subject-matter requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Agiwal and Abedini are entitled to the priority dates of their provisional applications, and Petitioner has not shown a likelihood that it would prevail in its challenges to any claims of the ’915 patent.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedNot shown unpatentable
“Fatal to the Petition, though, Petitioner did not establish that the subject matter relied upon for prior art was effectively filed in the provisional applications. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2), 102(d). Under the AIA, a provisional application must “describe[] the subject matter” relied upon as prior art in the reference patent. 35 U.S.C. §102(d); see also MPEP § 2154.01(b). Petitioner does not assert, much less show, that the provisional applications satisfy the subject-matter requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Agiwal and Abedini are entitled to the priority dates of their provisional applications, and Petitioner has not shown a likelihood that it would prevail in its challenges to any claims of the ’915 patent.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,484,915 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00652 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 and 17–41 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and at least 3–5 years of experience in composite materials or additive manufacturing,” or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and at least 5–6 years of experience. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . . But regardless of what level of skill is applied, the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood to prevail.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See id. (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding should it be instituted, or in other proceedings.”). On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“teachings of multiple references, an articulated reason with some rational underpinning to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed must be provided. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools, Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (It is the petitioner’s “burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention[s], and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Lipsker and Wohrl in the manner recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,511,543 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00548 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 and 17–41 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“(“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and at least 3–5 years of experience in composite materials or additive manufacturing,” or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and at least 5–6 years of experience. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . . But regardless of what level of skill is applied, the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood to prevail.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See id. (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding should it be instituted, or in other proceedings.”).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“Thus, as we understand it, Petitioner is arguing that a POSITA would have understood Wohrl’s teaching of laying fiber strands on a core and precuring the fibers so that the fibers dry and stick to the core is “coupling a portion of the at least one path to an anchor point” as recited in claims 1 and 38. Petitioner’s argument appears to be premised on the understanding that any point at which the path contacts a “surface suitable for anchoring the part” is the claimed “anchor point.” The ’543 patent, however, describes an “anchor point” as something more than just any point to which a part of the path is affixed.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,511,543 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00732 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–9 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. ANALYSIS We have authority to institute an inter partes review only where “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Our findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision are provided for the exclusive purpose of explaining our determination that Petitioner has not met that standard on this record.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. To the extent a more specific definition is required, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. In any event, for the reasons explained below, even under Petitioner’s definition, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial with respect to any challenged claim based on the grounds of unpatentability advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Finally, we determine that Dr. Rosen’s testimony supporting Petitioner’s proffered motivations to combine is entitled to little or no weight. Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). Here, the relied-upon portions of Dr. Rosen’s Declaration simply parrot Petitioner’s conclusory assertions. Compare Pet. 35–36, 86, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–174, 280.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The question of whether the prior art references are in the same field of endeavor is merely a threshold issue that must be satisfied before an obviousness determination can be made. See K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix, Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (to qualify as prior art in an obviousness analysis, references must be analogous art—either in the same field of endeavor, or reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved). In other words, once it is determined that the prior art is analogous to the claimed invention, it is then necessary to show that it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to select and combine the teachings of the prior art in the manner claimed. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition needs to set forth specific reasoning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these references even if they are in the same or similar fields. Prelim. Resp. 31. Petitioner fails to do so on this record. The absence of such reasoning is particularly noteworthy here in view of Ma’s numerous teachings against the “passive” method of pulling the composite strand from the extruder as claimed. Patent Owner identifies no fewer than eight disclosures within Ma that seemingly disparage the passive “pulling” method and discuss benefits of the active “pushing” method. Prelim. Resp. 17–19 (citing Ex. 1007, 53, 95–96, 98–107, 143–147, 149, 167–168). In the absence of any explanation from Petitioner on this point, we are not persuaded that the skilled artisan would have ignored those teachings and selected Ma’s pulling method. Petitioner’s second reason to combine these references fares no better than the first because it lacks an explanation as to what specific disclosures in Lipsker and Ma would have been combined and for what reason(s). Instead, Petitioner provides little more than a conclusory assertion that Ma contains complementary teachings that would illuminate the skilled artisan’s understanding of Lipsker. Pet. 36. Petitioner, however, fails to provide a single citation to Ma in support of its position, much less an explanation regarding how Ma’s teachings would have enlightened the skilled artisan’s understanding of Lipsker such that it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Bare assertions such as these fall far short of providing the requisite rationale sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 US at 418). Petitioner’s third reason to combine is similarly deficient because it fails to address the teachings of Lipsker and Ma with any degree of specificity and again does not elaborate on how or why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of these references to arrive at the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,759,109 - PTAB · Sep 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00338 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6–10, 12, 14–17, and 19–24 on all petitioned challenges, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“E. Conclusion Concerning Discretionary Denial Under § 325(d) After analyzing the Becton factors in view of the Advanced Bionics” slip op. at 24
Discretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,995,357 - PTAB · Sep 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00337 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–40 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the §103 challenges, including obviousness over Bao and Feuersanger.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–40 in the ’655 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“As also explained in our patentability analysis below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Kwon. See Pet. 48–83; infra §§ IV.F.2–IV.F.4. In doing so, Petitioner demonstrates that the Examiner erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims when (1) rejecting the claims only due to obviousness-type double patenting and (2) failing to appreciate that Kwon ’790/Kwon teaches the claimed subject matter. See Ex. 1002, 134–41 (rejecting the claims only due to obviousnesstype double patenting and citing Kwon ’790 without explanation), 192–99 (allowing the claims after terminal disclaimer filed); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 304–520; infra §§ IV.F.2–IV.F.4. Because Petitioner persuasively shows on this record that Kwon teaches the claimed subject matter, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The descriptions of an ordinarily skilled artisan articulated by Petitioner and Patent Owner differ mainly in the educational level, i.e., “at least a Bachelor’s degree” according to Petitioner and “a Bachelor’s degree” according to Patent Owner. Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 8; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 20; Ex. 2001 ¶ 17. Based on the current record and for purposes of institution, we accept Patent Owner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with the ’655 patent and the asserted prior art. If the prior art renders the claimed subject matter obvious to a person with less experience and less knowledge, then the prior art renders the claimed subject matter obvious to a person with more experience and more knowledge. See Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that no claim terms require an express construction for the purposes of this proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Pet. 6). Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. “[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,454,655 - Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 31, 2022 · IPR2022-00456 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 17, and 19–21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,264,569 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’569 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we decline to institute review of the challenged claims of the ’569 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jonathan Wells, Petitioner offers an assessment as to the level of ordinary skill in the art and the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill at the time of the ’569 patent. See Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 44). Dr. Wells states that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, Physics, or equivalent and three to five years of experience working with wireless digital communication systems including with the physical layer of such systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 44. Dr. Wells further testifies that “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and conversely, significant additional experience might compensate for less education.” Id. Patent Owner does not propose an alternative assessment. See generally Prelim. Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“a portion of which were previously and separately sent to the mobile station.” Ex. 1001, 8:43–45. Independent claims 13, 14, and 21 contain the same phrase. Id. at 9:16–18, 9:25–27, 10:24–26. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding why the prior art fails to meet the italicized phrase are based on an implicit construction that the phrase requires sounding signal configuration parameters that at least a portion of which were previously and separately sent to the mobile station by a base station. Prelim. Resp. 1–4, 9–13, 16–17, 19–22. We understand Petitioner also to construe the phrase to require sounding signal configuration parameters that at least a portion of which were previously and separately sent to the mobile station by a base station. Pet. 39–40, 46; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51, 79, 96 (“[t]he base station would send these predetermined transmission parameters before—and separately from—the mobile station sending power control preamble, as required by the claim”). The parties’ proposed construction is consistent with the Specification of the ’569 patent. Ex. 1001, 3:12–18, 5:40–58, 6:1–6, 7:1–7, 7:60–67, Fig. 5. Thus, for purposes of this Decision we construe “sounding signal configuration parameters that at least a portion of which were previously and separately sent to the mobile station” to mean “sounding signal configuration parameters that at least a portion of which were previously and separately sent to the mobile station by a base station.” For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“station.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 51 (citing Ex. 1006, 21:7–8, 21:26). Dr. Wells concludes “[t]hus, Malladi teaches that the sounding signal is transmitted to the base station by the mobile station according to certain configuration parameters sent before and separately from the base station transmitting the uplink grant.” Id. The portions of Malladi cited describe a base station transmitting an uplink grant to an access terminal followed by transfer of a power control preamble from the access terminal. Ex. 1006, 21:7–13, 21:26, Fig. 12. Dr. Wells fails to explain how Malladi’s cited descriptions support the conclusion he makes that certain configuration parameters are sent to the access terminal before and separately from the base station transmitting the uplink grant, and we find that they do not. Thus, Dr. Well’s testimony in that regard is entitled to little weight. Moreover, such an unsupported conclusion is at odds with Dr. Wells’ further testimony addressing the disputed limitation, which makes different and separate assertions about the descriptions in Malladi and the ’931 Provisional. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 79.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,264,569
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.