- PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00185 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 11, 12, 14–20, 22–24, 26, and 29–36 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one challenged claim of the ’143 Patent is unpatentable. In particular, because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is rendered obvious by the asserted combinations of ICMSF, Hughes, and Price, we institute inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition. At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim or the construction of any claim term. Thus, our view with regard to any conclusion reached in the foregoing could change upon consideration of Patent Owner’s merits response and completion of the record.” slip op. at 54
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “lots” does not require construction because on the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of the term, and neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identify any way that claim construction may impact our decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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)). We also agree with Patent Owner that the ’143 patent provides definitions that guide the understanding of the term “lots” including teaching: The term “test lot” or “reportable lot” as used herein to refer to an assemblage of one or more specimens of a medium or process (e.g. assemblage of specimens of air, water, solids or of product of a production process, etc.) where such assemblage can be sampled by taking portions of the one or more specimens thereof, and where the one or more specimens of the assemblage are operationally linked in a manner (e.g. proximity, time, process step, etc.) whereby information derived about sampled portions is operationally applicable to all specimens of the assemblage, and thus to the test lot. In particular instances, portions are synonymous with specimens. Ex. 1002, 5:34–45. The Specification similarly provides definitions for “product portion,” “test lot sample,” and “single-unit production lot” that provide significant guidance and clarity as to the meaning of these terms. Id. at 5:52–63, 6:2–20.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“validation” as used herein with respect to production lots refers to determining that a particular sample tests negative using the detection assay. Where a modular composite sample tests negative, all single-unit production lot samples comprising the composite sample are validated along with the respective single-unit production lots, which are thus cleared for release. Where a modular composite sample tests positive, individual single unit production lots may nonetheless yet be validated if particular respective single-unit production lot samples test negative. Ex.1002, 7:15–24 (emphasis added). The above text expressly equates “validation” to a determination that “a particular sample tests negative.” The initial definitional sentence makes no mention of “cleared for release” as necessary for “validation.” The subsequent sentence refers to “cleared for release” in the more limited situation where a particular composite sample “tests negative all single-unit production lot samples,” and, even then, the “cleared for release” language indicates a separate step that may happen after the samples are “validated.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“On the current record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has insufficiently articulated a motivation to combine or modify the asserted references. With respect to Ground 1, for example, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify ICMSF based on Gombas under the teaching-suggestion-motivation test so portions of the enriched, retained samples are further tested after a positive test of a composite sample by the same protocol, with a reasonable expectation of success for efficient validation. See § XII-A-1-h supra; Dickson ¶¶ 417-19. Pet. 53–54. Petitioner further argues that ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to improve[] ICMSF with the similar methods of Gombas to yield efficient validation, which is a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In this combination, a POSA would have simply substituted steps of ICMSF, as described above, with those of Gombas so portions of the enrichment cultures are retained and are further tested after a positive test of a composite sample by the same protocol for predictably efficient validation. MPEP § 2143(I)(B); Dickson ¶ 420. Id. at 53. As such, the Petition provides specific reasons to combine ICMSF and Gombas that are consistent with the flexible test recited in KSR, including the benefit of efficient validation of the test and that the combination is a simple substitution of steps. As KSR notes, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 US at 417. Here, Petitioner has made its reasons to combine explicit. See Pet. 53–” slip op. at 47
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,822,143 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00183 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 10, 11, 13–20, 22, 23, and 26–33 because the asserted combinations of ICMSF, Hughes, and Price showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’584 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’584 patent on the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (POSA/POSITA), “would most likely have an advanced degree in microbiology, food science, or animal science and at least two years of work experience but may alternatively have a bachelor’s degree in those areas and at least four years of experience with validation methodologies.” Pet. 11. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a working knowledge of microbiology,” “would have been involved in developing sampling and testing methodologies for analysis of food products (“validation methodologies”),” and “would have been familiar with relevant scientific literature and industry regulations, directives, and guidelines relating to validation methodologies.” Id.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “lots” does not require construction because on the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of the term, and neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identify any way that claim construction impacts the decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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)).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“This definition requires that a “validation” determines that “a particular sample tests negative.” The initial definition sentence makes no mention of “cleared for release” as necessary for “validation.” Rather, the definition only refers to “cleared for release” in the more limited situation where a particular composite sample “tests negative all single-unit production lot samples,” and even then, the “cleared for release” is a separate step that occurs after the samples are “validated.”” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,534,584 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00816 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9–13, 16, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan because claim 23 showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“We determine that the first General Plastic factor does not favor exercising discretion to deny institution of inter partes review. This is Petitioner’s first petition challenging the ’330 patent. Pet. 73. Patent Owner argues that “Apple’s use of prior petitions as a roadmap ‘implicitly create[s] such a relationship’” as set forth in Valve. Prelim. Resp. 54. According to Patent Owner, “Apple’s admitted attempt to improve over issues ‘that have plagued prior invalidity challenges’ ties its interests to the prior Petitioner’s aims.” Id. Under the circumstances in this case, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner has any significant relationship with Lenovo or Samsung—for example, that Petitioner is a co-defendant with either of them or was accused of infringing the ’330 patent based on the same product. See Valve at 9–10. That Petitioner apparently may have reviewed and considered strategies undertaken by prior petitioners on similar issues does not, in and of itself, create a significant relationship with any of the prior petitioners. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“That Behbahani and Tan appeared in an initialed IDS is sufficient to satisfy the first Advanced Bionics prong. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8 (“Previously presented art includes art made of record by the Examiner, and art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent”). Leete was not previously presented to the Office, but we need not decide whether the reference to Leete in Behbahani (see Section II.F.1 below) or Petitioner’s obviousness arguments concerning Behbahani and Leete suffice to satisfy the first Advanced Bionics prong for purposes of this Decision. As discussed below, even if we assume that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied, Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims in the second part of the framework.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. Given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, we do not see a material difference in the proposals, and thus adopt Patent Owner’s version for the purposes of this Decision. If the parties believe that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis, they may address that during trial.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,010,330 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00819 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one claim unpatentable over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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 › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“We determine that the first General Plastic factor does not favor exercising discretion to deny institution of inter partes review. This is Petitioner’s first petition challenging the ’164 patent. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner has any significant relationship with Lenovo or Samsung—for example, that Petitioner is a co-defendant with either of them or was accused of infringing the ’164 patent or any related patents dbased on the same product. See Valve at 9–10. That Petitioner apparently may have reviewed and considered strategies undertaken by prior petitioners on similar issues does not, in and of itself, create a significant relationship with any of the prior petitioners. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses a two-part framework when determining whether to exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”).” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther
“of the alleged invention would have had “a master’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with wireless communication devices.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–29). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Id. Relying on Dr. Larson, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill “would have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical or Electronics Engineering, along with ‘approximately five years of relevant experience in the design of transceiver architecture, RF systems and components, and analog and mixed signal circuits, as well as experience in control algorithms for such systems and familiarity with wireless standards.” Prelim. Resp. 27– 28 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 50). Patent Owner further states that “[a]dditional education could substitute for experience and vice versa.” Id.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,564,164 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00818 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 4–23, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 7 is unpatentable over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan under § 103(a).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the present record, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing as to this limitation for purposes of institution.11 Petitioner has sufficiently shown, and Patent Owner does not appear to dispute, that Behbahani switches from its high-power filter to its low-power filter in response to signal strength measurements, and that this “filter swap” varies the impedance and/or bias current in the receiver. The only disputed issues appear to be: (1) whether the claim language excludes Behbahani’s filter” slip op. at 40
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“We determine that the first General Plastic factor does not favor exercising discretion to deny institution of inter partes review. This is Petitioner’s first petition challenging the ’202 patent. Pet. 75. Patent Owner argues that “Apple’s use of prior petitions as a roadmap ‘implicitly create[s] such a relationship’” as set forth in Valve. Prelim. Resp. 55. According to Patent Owner, “Apple’s admitted attempt to improve over issues ‘that have plagued prior invalidity challenges’ ties its interests to the prior Petitioner’s aims.” Id. Under the circumstances in this case, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner has any significant relationship with Lenovo or Samsung—for example, that Petitioner is a co-defendant with either of them or was accused of infringing the ’202 patent based on the same product. See Valve at 9–10. That Petitioner apparently may have reviewed and considered strategies undertaken by prior petitioners on similar issues does not, in and of itself, create a significant relationship with any of the prior petitioners. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We find that Becton, Dickinson factor (c)––the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination––does not favor denying the Petition under Section 325(d) because the Examiner did not cite Behbahani or Tan in any rejection and did not specifically address either reference in any correspondence, other than initialing them in an IDS. Nor did the Examiner address Leete. For factors (e) and (f), we find that Petitioner has explained sufficiently how the Examiner allegedly erred in evaluating Behbahani and Tan, by pointing to the Proposed Grounds, which detail how the challenged claims read on these references over the combination of Behbahani, Leete, and Tan. See Pet. 18–72. We find this sufficient to identify the “specific teachings” that were overlooked, as contemplated in Advanced Bionics, and we agree with Petitioner that the facts and discussion of Behbahani, Leete, and Tan presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the challenged claims in view of those references. We thus find that Petitioner has satisfied the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework by demonstrating that the Examiner may have erred by not appreciating that Behbahani, Leete, and Tan teach or suggest the features of the claimed invention. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the parties’ application of the prior art to the claims, it appears that there may be some disagreement concerning the meaning of “signal path” in this proceeding; however, neither party proposes an express construction of the term for this case. See Pet. 8–10; Prelim. Resp. 28–32. We will discuss the term “signal path” below in the context of the parties’ arguments applying this language to the asserted prior art. See § III.F.4.c, infra. The parties may further address the meaning of the term “signal path” during the trial.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,202 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00817 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a master’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with wireless communications devices” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–41). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical or Electronics Engineering, along with ‘approximately five years of relevant experience in the design of transceiver architecture, RF systems and components, and analog and mixed signal circuits, as well as experience in control algorithms for such system and familiarity with wireless standards’” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for experience and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (Ex. 2005 ¶ 50). Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. Given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, we do not see a material difference in the proposals, and thus adopt Patent Owner’s version for the purposes of this Decision. If the parties believe that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis, they may address that during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“Based on the parties’ application of the prior art to the claims, it appears that there may be some disagreement concerning the meaning of “signal path” in this proceeding; however, neither party proposes an express construction of the term in this proceeding. See Pet. 8–10; PO Resp. 29–32. We will discuss the term “signal path” below in the context of the parties’ arguments applying this language to the asserted prior art. See § III.F.4.f, infra. The parties may further address the meaning of the term “signal path” during the trial. Patent Owner also argues that we should dismiss the Petition because Petitioner is relying on a construction that it disagreed with in the related district court litigation, citing the Board’s non-precedential decisions in Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLC, IPR2024-00319, Paper 16 at 13–23 (PTAB Jun. 24, 2024) and Hologic, Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., IPR2018-00019, Paper 21 at 5–7 (PTAB Nov. 28, 2018). Prelim. Resp. 30–32. Patent Owner, however, relies on a flawed understanding of the Samsung case. In Samsung, the Board determined that Petitioner had failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success because it offered and relied on a claim construction that it failed to support, disagreed with, and disparaged, and that this claim construction was not agreed upon by the patent owner or adopted by a district court. Samsung, Paper 21 at 13–23. Specifically, as the Board pointed out in Samsung, the petitioner argued and submitted testimony from its expert that its proffered construction was “expressly excluded” by the specification of the challenged patent and was “contrary to [the term’s] plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 14–15, 19–20. In reaching its decision in Samsung, the Board expressly “distinguish[ed] this case from situations where a petitioner relies on the ordinary meaning of a claim term, offers alternative constructions of a claim term, or relies on a construction agreed upon by the parties in the proceeding at issue.” Id. at 21. Here, unlike in Samsung, Petitioner relies on the plain and ordinary meaning of the dynamic limitation, which is agreed to by the parties in this proceeding and has been adopted by district courts in parallel litigation. We similarly find the facts in Hologic distinguishable from those presented here. See Hologic at 4 (stating, for example, that “[n]early every time [p]etitioner discusses its use in the [p]etition of [p]atent [o]wner’s proposed construction, [p]etitioner affirmatively disagrees with the construction it adopts.”). Therefore, we reject Patent Owner’s argument that Samsung and Hologic support dismissal of the Petition here. Other than the terms discussed above, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. 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 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Director Vidal has instructed the Board that General Plastic factor 1 should not be expanded beyond Valve to apply to parties that do not have a significant relationship. See Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited, IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 6 (Director Vidal, April 19, 2024) (“The majority’s Decision in this proceeding improperly expanded the discretionary principles set forth in General Plastic and Valve to apply to petitioners that are not the same and do not have a ‘significant relationship.’”). Moreover, Director Vidal has instructed that where “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Id. We determine that the first General Plastic factor does not favor exercising discretion to deny institution of inter partes review. This is Petitioner’s first petition challenging the ’825 patent. Pet. 70. Patent Owner argues that “Apple’s use of prior petitions as a roadmap ‘implicitly create[s] such a relationship’” as set forth in Valve. Prelim. Resp. 55. According to Patent Owner, “Apple’s admitted attempt to improve over issues ‘that have plagued prior invalidity challenges’ ties its interests to the prior Petitioner’s aims.” Id. Under the circumstances in this case, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner has any significant relationship with Lenovo or Samsung—for example, that Petitioner is a co-defendant with either of them or was accused of infringing the ’825 patent based on the same product. See Valve at 9–10. That Petitioner apparently may have reviewed and considered strategies undertaken by prior petitioners on similar issues does not, in and of itself, create a significant relationship with any of the prior petitioners. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We find that Becton, Dickinson factor (c)––the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination––does not favor denying the Petition under Section 325(d) because the Examiner did not cite Behbahani or Tan in any rejection and did not specifically address either reference in any correspondence, other than initialing them in an IDS. Nor did the Examiner address Leete. For factors (e) and (f), we find that Petitioner has explained sufficiently how the Examiner allegedly erred in evaluating Behbahani and Tan, by pointing to the proposed grounds, which detail how the challenged claims read on these references over the combination of Behbahani, Leete, and Tan. See Pet. 18–68. We find this sufficient to identify the “specific teachings” that were overlooked, as contemplated in Advanced Bionics, and we agree with Petitioner that the facts and discussion of Behbahani, Leete, and Tan presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the challenged claims in view of those references. We thus find that Petitioner has satisfied the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework by demonstrating that the Examiner may have erred by not appreciating that Behbahani, Leete, and Tan teach or suggest the features of the claimed invention. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,129,825 - Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00820 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–6, and 8–11 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over Behbahani and Tan.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“To the extent Patent Owner is suggesting that considerations such as those set forth in General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential Section II.B.4.i) support denial of institution, we are unpersuaded because the other proceedings to which Patent Owner refers did not involve the ’210 patent. We thus do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“First, we find that Becton, Dickinson factor (c)––the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination––does not favor denying the petition under Section 325(d) because the Examiner did not cite Behbahani or Tan in any rejection and did not specifically address either reference in any correspondence, other than initialing them in an IDS. For factors (e) and (f), we find that Petitioner has explained sufficiently how the Examiner allegedly erred in evaluating Behbahani and Tan, by pointing to the Proposed Grounds, which detail how the challenged claims read on these references. See Pet. 17–67. We find this sufficient to identify the “specific teachings” that were overlooked, as contemplated in Advanced Bionics, and we agree with Petitioner that the facts and discussion of Behbahani or Tan presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the challenged claims in view of those references. We thus find that Petitioner has satisfied step 2 of the Advanced Bionics framework by demonstrating that the Examiner may have erred by not appreciating that Behbahani and Tan teach or suggest the features of the claimed invention. For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Summary for Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s cited evidence and reasoning shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its contentions regarding claim 1.5 5. Remaining Claims At this stage, Patent Owner does not separately challenge Petitioner’s contentions as to claims 2–3, 5–6, and 8–11. Because we have preliminarily determined that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to at least one claim of the ’210 patent, we institute inter partes review on all claims and grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all” slip op. at 34
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“a master’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with wireless communications devices” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–40). Patent Owner contends that “a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical or Electronics Engineering, along with ‘approximately five years of relevant experience in the design of transceiver architecture, RF systems and components, and analog and mixed signal circuits, as well as experience in control algorithms for such system and familiarity with wireless standards’” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for experience and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 50). Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. Given that both parties indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, we do not see a material difference in the proposals, and thus adopt Patent Owner’s version for the purposes of this decision. If the parties believe that the choice of one formulation over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis, they may address that during trial.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,638,210 - PTAB · Nov 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00834 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“anticipated by Sonti. Pet. 3. To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims to find anticipation. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In evaluating anticipation, it is permissible to take into account not only the literal teachings of the prior art reference, but also the inferences the skilled artisan would draw from it. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. At Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the “dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference”). As such, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“b. Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to topically administer 1% tapinarof composition once a day to treat mild to severe plaque psoriasis in view of Sonti’s teaching to apply its compositions (including 1% tapinarof compositions) in various application frequencies (including once daily) to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Pet. 29–30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184, 187–188; Ex. 1005 Abstract, ¶¶ 55, 196, 288, 387).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsInstituted
“d. Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Patent Owner asserts that, although the “Petition notes the patent’s ‘surprising[] and unexpected[]’ finding that once daily application of 1% tapinarof cream was just effective as twice daily application, . . . the Petition does not analyze, as the law requires, this surprising, unexpected finding in its obviousness arguments.” Prelim. Resp. 52. We are not persuaded by this argument. Immediately after the Petition’s acknowledgement that “[t]he specification [of the ’088 patent] contends that it was ‘surprisingly’ found that once daily application was just as effective as twice daily,” the Petition notes that, “[h]owever, during prosecution the examiner cited a set of prior art by Chen et al. disclosing treating plaque psoriasis by topically applying a composition containing 1% tapinarof once a day.” Pet. 1 (footnote omitted). Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner counters “Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” by referring to the Chen references cited during prosecution, but asserts that “Chen . . . does not undermine Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” because “Chen discloses applying a composition containing 1% mixture of cis and trans 3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropylstilbene, and not one containing 1% tapinarof (3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropyl-trans-stilbene).” Prelim. Resp. 52–53.16 As 16 Patent Owner refers to its earlier discussion on this issue. Prelim. Resp. 53 (“As already discussed . . .”). That earlier discussion is with respect to the Chen references cited in Sonti (i.e., Exs. 1012 & 1013), not the Chen 40” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,590,088 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00679 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 28, 38, 39, 41–43, 53, 56–59, 61–63, and 65–68 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 28 was obvious over Krantz and Herrmann.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of relevant experience in networking and network security, and related fields.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering and at least three years of experience in networking operating systems and cybersecurity.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Alternatively, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a master’s degree in one of the foregoing and at least two years of experience in the aforementioned fields.” Id. On the present record, neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as, on the present record, it appears consistent with the ’484 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Based on the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that the recited “reconfiguring the communication port” at least encompasses changing the association between the input port and output port of the access point. This is supported by the specification of the ’484 patent, which states: “Access Control 320 is configured to send commands to Switch Logic 317 in order to reconfigure members of Ports 305A-305G. This reconfiguration includes modifying the association of members of Ports 305A-305G with different members of VLANs 310A-310D.” Ex. 1501, 9:21–25; see also id. at 8:16–21 (similar disclosure with respect to “configuring and reconfiguring”). Notwithstanding, based on the present record, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “reconfiguring the communication port” is limited to changing the connection between the input port and the output port of the access point. Instead, the ’484 patent makes clear that reconfiguration is merely “typically,” not necessarily, of this type. Ex. 1501, 3:20–25. For this reason, we need not and do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction at this juncture.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Based on the present record, we find Petitioner’s rationale sufficient for institution. Petitioner points to Krantz’s alleged goals of security and automation. Pet. 19. Petitioner (id.) and Dr. Houh (Ex. 1503 ¶ 64) both cite paragraph 19 of Krantz, which states that “[i]f credentials do not authorize full access . . . the server can respond by sending a notification . . . includ[ing] conditions (e.g., signup, renewal etc.) a user must satisfy to become authorized for []full access to resources.” Ex. 1505 ¶ 19. We are persuaded preliminarily that an ordinarily skilled artisan considering Krantz’s teachings of such conditions for full access would have had reason to apply Herrmann’s technique for checking a client’s antivirus security policy in the manner suggested by Petitioner. See, e.g., Ex. 1503 ¶ 64; Ex. 1506 ¶ 68. Krantz’s express teaching of conditions for a client to fully access a network (Ex. 1505 ¶ 19) also undermines Patent Owner’s argument about impermissible hindsight and Patent Owner’s suggestion that Krantz is limited to user authentication. Finally, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently, for purposes of instituting review, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected success in making the combination because it would only require software modifications to Krantz’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1503 ¶ 64.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,523,484 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00675 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 11–13, 15–19, and 23–25 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success at least on obviousness over Krantz and Herrmann.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“e) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Krantz and Herrmann. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review with respect to all grounds asserted in the Petition. 5. Claims 2–6, 11–13, 15–19, and 23–25 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’484 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 22
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“III. PARALLEL PETITIONS As noted above, Petitioner challenges the ’484 patent both in this proceeding and in IPR2024-00679. Petitioner argues that we should institute review in both proceedings because “the analysis of all 33 challenged claims . . . of the 484 Patent could not reasonably fit within the word limit for a single petition.” Paper 4, 2. Petitioner notes further that “addressing different sets of independent claims in each petition was most efficient given the differences between independent claim 1 (Petition 1 - IPR2024-00675) and independent claims 28, 41, 56, and 57 (Petition 2 - IPR2024-00679).” Id. Patent Owner does not argue that we should deny institution either in this proceeding or in IPR2024-00679 due to Petitioner’s having filed parallel petitions challenging the ’484 patent. Prelim. Resp. 1–44. Given Patent Owner’s acquiescence and Petitioner’s arguments, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution due to the parallel petitions.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“in networking operating systems and cybersecurity.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Alternatively, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a master’s degree in one of the foregoing and at least two years of experience in the aforementioned fields.” Id. On the present record, neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as, on the present record, it appears consistent with the ’484 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the present record, we agree with Patent Owner that the recited “reconfigur[ing] the communication device” at least encompasses changing the association between the input port and output port of the access point. This is supported by the specification of the ’484 patent, which states: “Access Control 320 is configured to send commands to Switch Logic 317 in order to reconfigure members of Ports 305A-305G. This reconfiguration includes modifying the association of members of Ports 305A-305G with different members of VLANs 310A-310D.” Ex. 1501, 9:21–25; see also id. at 8:16–21 (similar disclosure with respect to “configuring and reconfiguring”). Notwithstanding, based on the present record, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “reconfigur[ing] the communication device” is limited to changing the connection between the input port and the output port of the access point. Instead, the ’484 patent makes clear that reconfiguration is merely “typically,” not necessarily, of this type. Ex. 1501, 3:20–25. For this reason, we need not and do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction at this juncture. Based on the present record, we need not expressly construe any other claim terms.3 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))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,523,484
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.