- Intel Corporation v. Pact XPP Schweiz AGSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00539 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14–24, 28, 30, and 33 are unpatentable under the Nicol and Nicol–Bhatia obviousness grounds; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“2. Reason to combine Nicol and Bhatia Intel argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings of Nicol and Bhatia” for the following four reasons: (1) both references “are directed to interrelated thermal and power management aspects that are critical and ubiquitous in processor-based systems,” Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1008, code (54); Ex. 1009, 1:6–8; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 231–233); (2) the references “both describe a flexible multiprocessor architecture in which software residing in a controller is programmed to selectively control the power supply of each processor, notably by dynamically adjusting the processor’s clock frequency during operation,” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:18–27, 3:13–18; Ex. 1009, 1:57– 59, 2:28–31, 3:23–28, 3:33–38, 12:26–37; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 231–233); (3) since Nicol “does not discuss over-temperature protection,” which is “critical for high-performance systems such as Nicol’s multiprocessor system,” a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to consult Bhatia, which discusses well-known techniques of providing over-temperature protection,” Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:9–20, 4:11–13; Ex. 1009, 2:18– 22, 3:33–46; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 231–233); and (4) a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to consult Bhatia [to implement] low activity states in Nicol’s system as . . . means to further minimize power consumption,” Pet. 55 (citing Ex. 1009, 12:58–64; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 231–233). In its Response, PACT argues that Intel’s four arguments “amount to little more than a suggestion that Nicol and Bhatia manage aspects of a computer system and it would be beneficial to combine these aspects,” which, “without any showing of actual motivation is plainly insufficient,” and “evidences application of impermissible hindsight bias.” PO Resp. 43– 44 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 110; Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). PACT also argues that Intel “makes no attempt to explain how a system combining Nicol and Bhatia would function, likely due to the fact that managing a plurality of metrics to create an efficient processing system is extremely difficult.” PO Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 111). Citing Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony, Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “might spend their entire career developing intricate systems for managing processor temperature and clock frequency among a plurality of processors, and [Intel] dismisses it as a mere triviality.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 111).” slip op. at 58
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). For a combination of known elements that are not explicitly found together in the prior art, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). A successful petition must “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418); see also 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4) (2020).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,552,047 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,552,047 - Telesign Corporation v. Twilio Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2019 · IPR2017-01977 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over Maes and Ransom, alone or with Jiang; the ETSI-based grounds were not proven.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science with at least two years of experience in application development.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 49–50). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, software engineering, or the equivalent, and approximately 1–2 years of professional experience with or exposure to computer networking, telephony networking protocols, and various APIs,” but “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 32).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“transfer (REST) API” to mean “an application programming interface that complies with Representational State Transfer (REST) interface constraints, which are: identification of resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-descriptive messages; and, hypermedia as the engine of application state.” PO Resp. 10. Petitioner does not propose an express construction for the term “representational state transfer (REST) API,” but acknowledged at the oral hearing that Patent Owner’s proposed construction “simply makes express what [Petitioner] implies.” Tr. 32:24–33:13. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’376 patent and the extrinsic evidence. Specifically, the ’376 patent indicates that the term “REST” has its ordinary meaning in the art (Ex. 1001, 2:15–16, 8:12–14), and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “REST API” to refer to the interface constraints set forth in Patent Owner’s proposed construction (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 163–166). Patent Owner’s proposed construction also is consistent with the construction that was adopted by the District Court in a related case. Ex. 2005, 16–22. Therefore, the term “representational state transfer (REST) API” is construed to mean “an application programming interface that complies with Representational State Transfer (REST) interface constraints, which are: identification of resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-descriptive messages; and hypermedia as the engine of application state.”” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successAnalogous artMotivation foundUnpatentable
“had reason to combine the cited teachings of Maes and Ransom. Pet. 12, 14, 22–24, 27–29 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 51–58, 62–75, 80–82, 88). We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning. Specifically, Maes and Ransom relate to the same field of endeavor as the ’376 patent, namely, web services. Pet. 12, 14; Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:10, 15:51–61; Ex. 1003, 3:52–65; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 42, 46, 57–58, 69–70, 78; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 51–58. It would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Maes and Ransom because Ransom’s REST API is a common web service model that provides similar functionality and has several design advantages over Maes’s SOAP API, such as increased interface flexibility and lower bandwidth requirements. Pet. 22–24, 27–29; Ex. 1004 ¶ 163; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 62–75, 80–82. It also would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Maes and Ransom because the teachings of Maes and Ransom are interrelated. Pet. 24, 28–29; Ex. 1009 ¶ 88; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents.”). Namely, Maes teaches using a web service (Ex. 1003, 3:52–65, 15:66–16:4; Ex. 1009 ¶ 88), and Ransom explains that REST is one of two common web service models (Ex. 1004 ¶ 163; Ex. 1009 ¶ 88).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusObjective indicia outweighedMixed
“Therefore, because the evidence of record indicates that Petitioner had access to some of Patent Owner’s technology, but does not show specifically that Petitioner copied the invention claimed in the ’376 patent, the objective indicia of copying at best only weighs slightly in favor of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 8,755,376 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,755,376 - Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01679 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, and 17 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 20–22 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claims 18–19 are obvious over …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“location.” See PO Resp. 21–22; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term “central monitoring device” is not further limited to a device that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 21–22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an open-ended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 20–22; Tr. 38:1–17. Though Patent Owner cites one dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constantly checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear that monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:2–31, 8:57–64. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe “central monitoring device” as “a device that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’901 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:13–23, 2:38–44. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–43. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’901 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’901 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. 3.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 6,225,901 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,225,901 - Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01688 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, and 18 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’403 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’403 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that a central monitoring device/service is a device/service that “watch[es], keep[s] track of, or check[s]” on something “from a central location.” See PO Resp. 21; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term central monitoring device/service is not further limited to a device/service that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 20– 22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an openended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit this claim term in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 19–22; Tr. 38:1–17. The term “central monitoring service” does not appear in the Specification. Though Patent Owner cites a dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constant checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:6–35, 8:63–9:2. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the term central monitoring device/service in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:14–20, 6:42–47, 7:17–25, 7:57–64, 8:28–42); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 21–34. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe central monitoring device/service as a device or service “that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’403 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:17–27, 2:42–48. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–44. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties during the trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers. 4.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 6,940,403 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,940,403
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.