• NVIDIA Corporation v. Invensas CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2021 · IPR2020-01729 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable under §103 over the listed combinations of Jaso, Stine1998, Pramanik1997, and Robinson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner responds that, because Jaso discloses a damascene process with trenches, Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction is “unnecessary.” Reply 32. We agree that the damascene process of Jaso is the same damascene process to which Patent Owner seeks to limit this claim term. Patent Owner does not argue otherwise in its Sur-reply. See Sur-reply. Thus, we decline to construe the term “etching . . . trenches into a dielectric layer.”” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’231 patent “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in physics, chemistry, materials science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or related discipline, in addition to 3–5 years of experience in the fabrication of integrated circuit devices. Additional years of experience could substitute for formal education, and vice versa.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the qualifications of a POSA for the purposes of this IPR.” PO Resp. 9. We regard Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’231 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Overall, we have considered all of Patent Owner’s arguments but do not find that they undermine the overall credibility of Dr. Boning. However, we will consider any question regarding his credibility on any specific issue raised by Patent Owner in the obviousness analysis below, where appropriate.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Jaso and Stine1998 “to etch a plurality of dummy trenches in a dielectric layer between a first (wider) trench and a series of second (narrower) trenches.” Id. at 66 (citation omitted). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary still in the art “would be motivated to combine the teachings in Jaso and Stine1998, as both references are directed to the addition of dummy conductors to equalize pattern density to improve CMP planarity.” Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1004, code (57), 3:29–64; Ex. 1005, 668). In particular, Petitioner states that “Stine1998 enhances and improves upon the disclosure in Jaso by providing general teachings and specific methods that are widely applicable to dummy metal-fill techniques for addressing added capacitance.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1005, 670–672). Petitioner points out that “Stine1998 expressly motivates a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to apply its teachings to a damascene process requiring dummy-fill to enhance planarity” because Stine1998 states its methodology can be extended to “inlaid metal techniques such as copper (emphasis omitted). Analysis of Patent Owner’s Arguments 1) Prior Art Does not “Look for” a Specific Configuration Patent Owner argues “Stine1998 does not tell the POSA to look for a specific configuration of structures, and then insert dummy metal into a particular location within that configuration (as the Relevant Solution does.)” PO Resp. 36–37. Patent Owner also argues that Jaso and Stine1998 “together accordingly tell the POSA to focus on pattern density, and to take steps to ensure that variations in pattern density across the chip are minimized” as opposed to looking for the particular configuration called out by the claims. Id. at 58. There is no requirement in the claims for the prior art to “look for” specific structures, but rather it must disclose those structure required by the claims. For the reasons articulated in the Petition, we agree that the combined teachings of Jaso and Stine1998 teach the structure required by claim 1. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1004, code (57), 3:29–64; Ex. 1005, 668), 50–52 (citing Ex. 1005, 670). We also credit Dr. Boning’s testimony that these references’ teachings “to locate dummies in sparse regions proximate to wide and narrow lines...would obviously include placing dummies in regions between such lines.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 183 (emphasis added). The fact that Jaso and Stine1998 may not purposefully seek out the configuration relied on by Patent Owner does not undermine Petitioner’s showing that the proper configuration would result from an obvious combination of the references. Thus, we are not persuaded by these arguments.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 6,232,231 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,232,231
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2021 · IPR2021-00571 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–6 and 10–15 because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success on the required control traffic label limitation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Notably, although Petitioner understands that the Examiner allowed the Challenged Claims based on this “indicating” limitation (Pet. 33), Petitioner fails to direct us with particularity to any disclosure or teaching in Fine of a “control traffic label” itself “indicating” to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment. See Pet. 33–35. As argued by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 47– 48), Petitioner does not explain with particularity how or why Fine’s VLAN Tag field 304 or Destination Address field 306 (or both) indicates to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to user equipment (or teaches such “indicating”). Instead, Petitioner merely leaps from arguing that Fine teaches that tagged BPDUs do not reach user equipment (Pet. 34), to averring that this constitutes or teaches the claimed “indicating” limitation, without providing particular support and explanation for such a leap. See Pet. 33–35; 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (The petition must identify supporting evidence “with particularity.” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art . . . .” (emphasis added)). For the foregoing reasons, and constrained by the Petition, we are not persuaded that the cited evidence adequately supports Petitioner’s contention that Fine discloses “the control traffic label indicating to the LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Notably, although Petitioner understands that the Examiner allowed the Challenged Claims based on this “indicating” limitation (Pet. 33), Petitioner fails to direct us with particularity to any disclosure or teaching in Fine of a “control traffic label” itself “indicating” to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment. See Pet. 33–35. As argued by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 47– 48), Petitioner does not explain with particularity how or why Fine’s VLAN Tag field 304 or Destination Address field 306 (or both) indicates to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to user equipment (or teaches such “indicating”). Instead, Petitioner merely leaps from arguing that Fine teaches that tagged BPDUs do not reach user equipment (Pet. 34), to averring that this constitutes or teaches the claimed “indicating” limitation, without providing particular support and explanation for such a leap. See Pet. 33–35; 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (The petition must identify supporting evidence “with particularity.” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art . . . .” (emphasis added)). For the foregoing reasons, and constrained by the Petition, we are not persuaded that the cited evidence adequately supports Petitioner’s contention that Fine discloses “the control traffic label indicating to the LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10.” slip op. at 14

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,127,523
• Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00300 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 21–26 were held unpatentable as obvious over Huber, Everett, and Lexer; claims 2, 27, 40, and 42 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 44 and 45 were entered.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(7) Claim 1 Conclusion After having analyzed the entirety of the trial record and assigning” slip op. at 31

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “For the above reasons, Petitioner has not met its burden to” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 8,690,330 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,690,330
• Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2021 · IPR2019-01235 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over Krtolica and Rosenberg, with Eisenberg and DSDP added for certain dependent-claim grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “with the claim language itself, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary meaning of “multimedia communication data” is data related to multimedia communication, and that this may comprise signaling data required for communicating multimedia between two or more locations. We see nothing in the claim language that requires that data must include the underlying media content itself (such as video or voice signals) in order to qualify as “multimedia communication data.” We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s construction of “multimedia” “means no media” (PO Supp. 1 (emphasis omitted)), because Petitioner is not arguing that media content cannot be present, but instead is simply arguing that media content is one type of “multimedia communication data,” with” slip op. at 12

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

    “each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (For an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (A finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation.’” (citation omitted)). D. Ground 1: Obviousness over Krtolica and Rosenberg — Claims 1, 3–5, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 23 Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3–5, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Krtolica and Rosenberg. Pet. 30–70. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–5, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 23 are unpatentable on this ground. 1. Overview of Krtolica Krtolica is directed to a system that sends information data packets” slip op. at 18

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

    “H. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness Patent Owner also presents arguments and evidence of objective indicia or secondary considerations of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 51–57; PO Sur-Reply 19–22. Objective indicia of nonobviousness may include long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, unexpected results, commercial success, copying, licensing, industry praise, and expert skepticism. Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “[O]bjective indicia ‘may often be the most probative and cogent evidence of nonobviousness in the record,’” and “help turn back the clock and place the claims in the context that led to their invention.” Id. at 1378 (quoting Ortho–McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness “must always when present be considered en route to a determination of obviousness.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). Objective indicia of nonobviousness are “only relevant to the obviousness inquiry ‘if there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the [objective indicia of nonobviousness].’” In re Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC, 856 F.3d 883, 901 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). For objective indicia of nonobviousness to be accorded substantial weight, their proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “a patentee is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of nexus between the asserted evidence of secondary considerations and a patent claim if the patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). That is, presuming nexus is appropriate “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Id. (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). On the other hand, the patentee is not entitled to a presumption of nexus if the patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or process. Id. Once “the patentee has presented a prima facie case of nexus, the burden of coming forward with evidence in rebuttal shifts to the challenger . . . to adduce evidence to show that the commercial success was due to extraneous factors other than the patented invention.” Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392–93. However, “[a] finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate” slip op. at 82

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “highly confidential source for the STNS system, and seeks to seal that identification. Paper 29, 1. The Motion is unopposed. We have reviewed the redacted portion of the document, as well as the explanations of the confidential nature of the materials for which sealing is sought, as discussed in the Motion. We grant the Motion and the associated request to enter the Protective Order.” slip op. at 92

  Patent outcomesUS 8,560,828 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,560,828
• Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2021 · IPR2019-01234 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–5, 15–17, 23–26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 8, 9, 19, 20, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed skill level, that is, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or similar field, and at least two years of experience in a relevant field such as telecommunications or multimedia communications. Inst. Dec. 20. We also agreed with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill would have some familiarity with the design and implementation of VoIP and multimedia networks. Id. We did not agree, however, that the level of qualifications included monitoring and maintaining VoIP and multimedia networks, as Petitioner asserted, and therefore declined to adopt those requirements. Id. ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution to include “familiarity with the design and implementation of VoIP and multimedia networks,” but further described this requirement to include other requirements: an understanding of the techniques employed by network firewalls and the issues they present with respect to establishing and conducting multimedia communication sessions; an understanding of the performance demands placed on the network by multimedia communications, and the constraints that such demands place on processing and security measures that could be adopted; and a recognition of the distinctions between prior art firewall traversal solutions and the inventions of the ’978 Patent. PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner refers to GPAC, which identifies the factor of the “type of problems encountered in the art” as a consideration in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 22 (citing In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). We have reviewed the relevant technology and claims of the ’978 patent, as well as the technology of the asserted prior art, and we adopt the same qualifications as those adopted in the Decision on Institution because they are commensurate with the relevant technology. These qualifications are similar to presented by Petitioner, with the” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner relies on the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 20. Patent Owner indicates that its arguments are also based upon the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 22. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of the terms of the claims. 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 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “As discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that Kirchhoff discloses the use of SSL, a protocol that uses data encryption (Ex. 1005, 8:47–49). We also agree with Petitioner that Krtolica discloses the use of HTTP protocols on port 80 (Ex. 1004, 6:23–24), and does so with a goal of maintaining high network security (id. at 1:7–10, 2:33–36). As Kirchhoff discloses, and Dr. Lavian’s testimony supports, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware that port 443, rather than port 80, would be used for secure web connections using SSL, which includes the use of encryption, and this would have resulted in enhanced network security. See Ex. 1005, 3:38–41; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52, 69, 108. As Dr. Lavian testifies, SSL/TLS was the most widely deployed security protocol in the world and the well-known use of SSL in HTTPS protocol enables secure web-based e-commerce. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69, 108; Ex. 1035 ¶ 8; Ex. 1006, 5. And, Krtolica has a stated goal to maintain network security. Ex. 1004, 1:7–10, 2:33–37. We find this evidence provides a sufficient rational underpinning in support of obviousness for combining the teachings of Krtolica and Kirchhoff. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Owner’s arguments that use of encryption in SSL was optional and adding encryption would allegedly undermine network security. Nor do we find persuasive the argument that the Petitioner’s motivation to combine based on efficiency is insufficient, because Petitioner relies on another rationale for the combination of Krtolica and Kirchhoff, that is, enhanced network security, also discussed above. We additionally do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s arguments that combining Krtolica and Kirchhoff would render the system of Krtolica unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because, as Petitioner argues, this assertion is contradicted by the state of the art at the time. See Pet. Reply 9. As discussed above, Dr. Lavian explains that there were known systems having firewalls with SSL traversal at the time of the invention. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53, 59–65; Ex. 1035 ¶ 20; Ex. 1014. Moreover, the ’978 patent uses encryption with firewalls using a single-port protocol, and Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in that patent that indicates that the use of encryption with a single-port protocol was inventive in that the system, or that encryption had to be done in a special manner. See Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (at 311, 341), Fig. 5 (503, 508)); see also Ex. 1001, 6:4–8. In a similar vein, Patent Owner argues that due to incompatibilities the combination of SSL with Krtolica would be unsuccessful, and we address this issue below.” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Where the prior art contains “apparently conflicting” teachings (i.e., where some references teach the combination and others teach away from it) each reference must be considered “for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill . . . consider[ing] the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Hosner, AES encryption appears to have one of the higher processing speeds of the algorithms tested. See Ex. 1006, 23. Further, the ’978 patent itself supports the acceptable performance of AES encryption in single-port protocol, stating that “[a]ny method or algorithm of encryption may be used” with its invention “including, but not limited to 128-bit find Patent Owner’s argument on the use of AES to be persuasive. We have reviewed Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence as to how the combination of Kirchhoff and Krtolica teach the limitations of claims 4, 16, and 24, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. Pet. 75–76, 81.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 7,710,978 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,710,978
• Apple, Inc. v. Uusi, LLC D/B/A NartronSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00358 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 94, 96, 101–106, 115, and 116 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 37–39, 97–99, and 107–109 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “§ 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claims. Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”). In the Institution Decision, we determined Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to at least one 1 As discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that claim 117 is not challenged in this proceeding. challenged claim, and we instituted trial on all claims and all grounds in the Petition. Inst. Dec. 67–68.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The ‘183 patent grew out of a “study” which the inventor performed to determine the optimal scan frequencies for close-proximity touch arrays. The ‘183 patent describes this study, and then reports its conclusion: “higher frequencies” are optimal. The ‘183 patent’s “switching circuit” incorporates the “use of higher frequencies,” as suggested by the study.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 5,796,183 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,796,183
• Trustid, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 24, 2019 · IPR2018-01066 · APJ Jean R Homere · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a) over Bushnell, Bala, and Pickering.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s Declarant, Leonard J. Forys, Ph.D., testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a B.S. degree in Computer Science, or Electrical Engineering, or similar engineering discipline with an emphasis in communications and at least three years of experience designing and/or developing contact center solutions, including network interconnection, computer-telephony integration, and customer and agent interfaces. Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 56–58. Further, Petitioner contends that the level of ordinary skill could have varied somewhat so as to allow industry experience and education to compensate for each other. Pet. 8. Patent Owner’s response does not address Petitioner’s proposed assessment of the level of the ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we observe that Petitioner’s undisputed assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We adopt the Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached

    “a. Centralized Caller profile System Patent Owner argues “Centralized Caller Profile System,” recited in the preamble of independent claims 1 and 11, is limiting and refers to caller profiles in a central location accessible and revisable by multiple parties. PO Resp. 8–9. According to Patent Owner, unlike caller profiles traditionally stored at a single location, the caller profiles are stored at a centralized database accessible and updatable by the user and authorized third parties (e.g., user’s agent, service provider). Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 40–44). Accordingly, Patent Owner submits that, as acknowledged by Petitioner, “Centralized Caller Profile System” encompasses not only caller profiles located at a single location, but also that which is accessible and revisable by multiple parties. Id. at 10–11 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 38, 44–54, Ex. 2004, 17:2– 18:7, 18:9–13, 21:7–14). Patent Owner therefore argues that Petitioner’s contention that the preamble is not limiting for lack of antecedent basis, and relates merely to a location (e.g. centralized or on the cloud) is not persuasive because it overlooks the ’612 patent’s description that the “Centralized Caller Profile System” permits multiple parties to access the database. Id. at 11–12, Sur-Reply 2–4. In response, Petitioner reasserts that the preamble is not limiting because it does not provide antecedent basis for and does not breathe meaning into the claims. Pet. Reply 3, Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, because the proposed construction of the preamble is already recited in the claim, namely “the Cloud Database is maintained [(meaning ‘accessible and revisable’)]” by each of a service provider, user, and third party, the reading of the preamble into the claim is duplicative and thereby non-limiting. Pet. Reply 3. We agree with Petitioner insofar as it is undisputed by the parties that the claim, as a whole, requires the Centralized Caller Profile System that comprises the Cloud Database including contents, which are maintained (i.e., accessible and revisable) by each of a user, a service provider, and a third party. Consequently, it is immaterial whether the preamble, which recites similar limitation, is limiting or not.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that, consistent with the cited disclosure of the ’612 patent, a POSITA would have understood that maintaining the “Cloud Database” relates to updating the “Content” thereof. PO Resp. 12– 13. As correctly noted by Patent Owner, the disclosure of the ’612 patent discusses in great detail updating the “Content” of the Cloud Database in connection with maintaining the Database, whereas Petitioner has not provided any references in the ’612 patent to support that maintaining the “Cloud Database” pertains also to updating the software and hardware thereof. Id., Sur-Reply 5–6. Accordingly, we construe “the Cloud Database is maintained” as being limited to updating or revising the “Content” of the caller information (e.g., profile or billing info) in the “Cloud Database”.” slip op. at 10

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

    “5. Obviousness Analysis Petitioner provides explanations to account for all of the claim limitations required by claims 1–20, and reasons combining the teachings of Bushnell, Pickering, and Bala, citing Dr. Forys’s Declaration for support. Pet. 25–74, Ex. 1032. We begin our analysis with claim 1. We have reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner Response, Petitioner’s Reply, and Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply as well as the relevant evidence discussed in those papers and other record papers. We are persuaded that the record before us establishes Petitioner’s contentions for claims 1–20 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,143,612 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,143,612
• Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00180 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4–7, 9–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Hwang or Hwang and Balakrishnan; claim 17 was not shown unpatentable over Hwang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the parties formulate slightly differently their respective assessments of the skill level, neither party disputes directly the other’s assessment nor makes any arguments related to the assessments. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. The ’221 patent states its disclosure “relates, in general, to integrated circuits and, more particularly, to power converter integrated circuits.” Ex. 1001, 1:9–11. In view of the foregoing, we adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, this level of ordinary skill is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)) (“As with any claim construction analysis, we begin with the claim language.”). None of the challenged claims (nor even unchallenged claim 8) recites the claimed disabling or terminating occurs in response to the detect signal independent of other circuit conditions or in response only to the detect signal. See Ex. 1001, 12:5–14:36. For instance, independent claim 4 merely recites, “wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 12:49–51. Independent claim 7 similarly recites, “wherein the gating circuit disables the drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 13:11–13. Independent claim 9 discloses only, “a first comparator . . . having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” Id. at 13:27–30. Finally, independent claim 15 requires, “comparing the error signal to a reference signal . . . to terminate the step of generating in response to the error signal.” Id. at 14:21–23. Therefore, the plain language of the challenged claims does not, standing alone, support adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony from their respective declarants on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “in response to” as requiring “independent of other circuit conditions.” Compare Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1) with PO Resp. 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42, 44–45.) and Sur-Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45). Patent Owner further directs our attention to a single sentence of deposition testimony in which Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Szepesi appears to agree with Patent Owner’s construction by stating, in the context of claim 9, that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2003, 44:16– 45:1). Petitioner rebuts Patent Owner’s arguments by identifying additional deposition testimony and statements made in a second declaration offered by Dr. Szepesi opposing Patent Owner’s construction. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1). For instance, immediately before the statement Patent Owner cites, Dr. Szepesi testified: Q: “So is it your opinion that an output for disabling the pulse generator must disable the pulse generator regardless of the other conditions in the circuit?” . . . A: “I don't understand your question. I said disabling the pulse generator means that the output of the pulse generator which is providing the pulses to the gate of the main switch, those pulses are disabled. That’s what it means in my opinion in this context.” Ex. 2003, 43:24–44:9. And, in his supplemental declaration, Dr. Szepesi states: As a first matter, I opined during my deposition that “an output disabling a pulse generator” means that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” But, at the time of my deposition I had not done a focused claim construction analysis of the limitation “a first comparator […] having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” This is because I hadn’t anticipated there being a dispute relevant to the validity analysis in view of what I understood as the plain meaning of the language. Despite the quote that Patent Owner relied upon, I believe now that a POSITA would not understand the claim language to require the first comparator to disable the output pulses independent of anything else. This belief is consistent with my responses to the first two of three successive questions in which I was asked about “disabling the pulse generator.” It is my opinion that the operation of the disclosed embodiment requires the presence of other conditions precedent before the first comparator can disable the drive pulses and this requirement is not excluded by the claim language. Ex. 1016 ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Our reviewing court has made clear that extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, beyond competing declarant testimony, neither party has entered into the record extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or contemporaneous usage in the art, addressing the scope of “in response to.” Having considered the testimony upon which Patent Owner relies and weighing it against the claim language itself, the Specification’s disclosures set forth above, and the contrary testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we find on balance that it does not warrant departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of “in response to” as Patent Owner urges. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Claim 4 further recites, “a control circuit having an input coupled for receiving the detect signal, wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Patent Owner’s sole contention with respect to claim 4 is that “[t]he alleged detect signal in Hwang does not satisfy this limitation” because “unlike the ’221 patent, the alleged ‘control circuit’ does not disable the switched drive control signal ‘in response to the detect signal’ independent of other circuit conditions.” PO Resp. 15–16. As discussed above, we decline to import into claim 4 a requirement that the claimed disabling must occur independent of other circuit conditions. See supra Section III.C.1. Because Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction that we rejected above, we are not persuaded that Hwang fails to meet the limitations of claim 4. Rather, having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of independent claim 4, arranged as recited in the claim. Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the Szepesi Declaration, further demonstrates where Petitioner contends each element of dependent claims 5 and 6 is disclosed in Hwang. Pet. 21–24. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis beyond the argument raised with respect to claim 4. See PO Resp. 17. Having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6, arranged as recited in these claims, and we adopt that analysis as our own. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hwang anticipates claims 4–6.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,597,221 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,597,221
• National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Technical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00699 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6 and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Assanelli; claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable over Kiefer and Assanelli; claims 6 and 20 are unpatentable over Lam and …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “In addition, on April 5, Patent Owner filed a Request for Adverse Judgment seeking cancelation of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 of the ’518 patent (Paper 44), which we granted (Paper 50). Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’518 patent remain in trial. Id.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of sophistication of the ’518 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of sophistication of the ’518 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of 13 ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’518 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)).” slip op. at 13

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

    “to . . . compute the effect of stressors on the wall of said tubular good” (Ex. 1001, 10:4–7), and that requirement is captured by our construction of that claim phrase to mean “causing a computer to use at least some of the information contained in the computer readable recording to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular” 18 (Inst. Dec. 8). To the extent Patent Owner contends that the term “computer” should be understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., as referring to a device for performing calculations on data, we agree, and observe that such understanding is captured by our original construction. Accordingly, for the reasons above, as well as those set forth in the Decision to Institute (id.), we construe the phrase “causing a computer means to use at least some of the information contained in said computer readable recording to compute the effect of stressors on the wall of said tubular good” to mean “causing a computer to use at least some of the information contained in the computer readable recording to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular.”” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,401,518 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,401,518
• National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Technical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00648 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 4 was held unpatentable as anticipated by Assanelli and obvious over Kiefer and Assanelli and over Lam and Assanelli.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “On April 5, 2018, Patent Owner filed a Request for Adverse Judgment, disclaiming and canceling claims 1–3 of the ’887 patent (Paper 41), which was granted on July 11, 2018 (Paper 44).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of 11 sophistication of the ’887 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’887 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner’s description of a relevant skilled artisan as possessing at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical, petroleum, or chemical engineering, and having at least 2–3 years of experience with pipe testing technology is supported by the record as a” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of 11 sophistication of the ’887 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’887 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Claim 4 expressly requires the use of a “computer means to compute the effect of stresses on the wall of said tubular good” (Ex. 1001, 10:36–38), and that requirement is captured by our construction of that claim phrase to 16 mean “using a computer to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular” (Inst. Dec. 8). To the extent Patent Owner contends that the term “computer” should be understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., as referring to a device for performing calculations on data, we agree, and observe that such understanding is captured by our original construction. Accordingly, for the reasons above, as well as those set forth in the Decision to Institute (Inst. Dec. 8–9), we construe the phrase “using a computer to compute the effect of stresses on the wall of said tubular good” to mean “using a computer to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular.” We further note that there is no meaningful dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation of “computer,” as Petitioner contends that Assanelli discloses the use of a computer to perform calculations, i.e., finite element analysis (“FEA”) or finite element modeling (“FEM”),2 using data obtained from inspection of a tubular good in order to model the effect of various stresses on that tubular good. See, e.g., Pet. 23–24 (describing the data acquisition and FEA modeling steps disclosed by Assanelli).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,263,887 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,263,887

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.