- PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00505 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14, 16–19, and 21–24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious over Gai.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Fintiv, we agree that it indicates that this factor weighs in favor of discretionary denial because the trial date is scheduled to occur before the final written decision deadline. However, the trial date here is closer to the deadline for the final written decision, with only a two-month difference here rather than the six-month difference in Fintiv, which increases the possibility here that any unforeseen delay in the district court proceeding could cause the order of those two events to reverse. Fintiv at 9 (“If the court’s trial date is at or around the same time as the projected statutory deadline . . . the decision whether to institute will likely implicate other factors.”). Therefore, we find this factor weighs only slightly in favor of denying institution.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“that Gai, the sole reference asserted in Ground 1, was presented to and considered by the Office during the prosecution of the ’986 patent. Prelim. Resp. 30–31. We agree. Gai appears on the face of the ’986 patent, is incorporated by reference into it, and was submitted in an IDS. See Ex. 1001, 3:15–41; Ex. 1002, 30 (IDS with Examiner acknowledgment). Petitioner acknowledges that the first part of Advanced Bionics is satisfied, so we proceed to the second part of the framework. Pet. 100.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“access switches on the second port.” Ex. 1001, claim 5. We find that Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for us to find a reasonable likelihood that Gai teaches or suggests dependent claims 5 and 17 at this time. Dependent claim 17 is similar to claim 5, but depends on claim 16 (which in turn depends on independent claim 13), adding “wherein the protocol processor is adapted to update the entries in the database to point to the second access port before receiving the communication traffic from the one or more access switches on the second port.” Id. at claim 17. These claims both require the switch implementing the method for rapid recovery, such as switch 124 in Petitioner’s example discussed above, to update its filtering database before receiving communication traffic from access switches, such as access switches 115 and 116 in Petitioner’s example. Pet. 58. That effectively means that switch 124 must update its database immediately upon transitioning to the new port either before or at the same time it transmits dummy messages to the access switches. So this differs from the analysis for claim 4 because allowing the corresponding entry in the filtering database to time out will not be sufficient to ensure that the entries will be updated before receiving communication traffic from one of the access switches. There is no express disclosure from the portions of Gai cited by Petitioner of immediately updating the database on the switch implementing the method. Pet. 57–58, 94; Ex. 1005, 2:30–41, 5:36–39, 5:54–56, 12:62– 65. Based on the current record, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s explanation of why Gai allegedly teaches or suggests this limitation. In the section addressing dependent claim 5, Dr. Houh asserts that: are transmitted before any communication traffic is received by the switch. As I discuss in Section VIII.A.5.ii, the filtering database is updated before transmitting the dummy messages. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood that the database entries would have been updated before receiving any communication traffic from the access switches. Ex. 1003 ¶ 139. However, Section VIII.A.5.ii of Dr. Houh’s declaration relates to dependent claim 4 which does not have any timing requirement, and the citations to Gai there do not describe that the switch first updates its filtering database before sending the dummy message.12 Id. ¶¶ 133–136. Therefore, the conclusory and unsupported assertions that Gai teaches or suggests this limitation, or renders it obvious to a POSITA, do not persuade us that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these claims, at least at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 58
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Id. Therefore, after a failure and switchover, edge switch 124 transmits dummy traffic to access switch 116 over the second link. Id. Based on the current record, we agree that this example is at least suggested by Gai’s teaching that “the method and apparatus manifests, in part, as a series of novel commands that may be entered at the devices. The devices, moreover, may be classified as either access switches or backbone switches.” Ex. 1005, 6:6–9. Switch 124 is a backbone switch because it interconnects at least access switches 114–116, and, according to Gai, the invention can be implemented on that switch by entering the corresponding commands on it. Id. The rest of the example, whereby ports are switched based on a failure and dummy traffic that is transmitted to the access switches updates their filtering databases, also follows Gai’s teaching. Pet. 39–46; Ex. 1005, 5:35– 6:12. Patent Owner responds to this argument by asserting that “Gai itself never describes backbone switch 124 in such a way,” disputing it could transmit dummy traffic to access switch 116 over the second link. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Rather, according to Patent Owner, “Gai clearly explains that such an action is in response to a port failure in access switch 114, not in teaching to the preferred embodiment that describes the failure occurring at switch 114, which we do not find warranted in view of the general teaching from Gai discussed above saying the invention can also be implemented on backbone switches. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A reference must be considered for everything it teaches.”).” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,917,986 - PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00503 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Kovvali and Kalman.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“on May 8, 2024 (see 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(1)), and none of the relevant deadlines for fact discovery or expert discovery, or the date of the scheduled Markman hearing, will have passed by that date. As described by Petitioner, fact and expert discovery do not close until next year, the parties have not yet exchanged preliminary claim constructions, and the Markman hearing is not scheduled until December 4, 2024, approximately four months after our deadline for this decision. See Pet. 83. We also find that Petitioner’s diligence in filing the Petition only about a month after receiving Patent Owner’s infringement contentions, and only four months after the filing of the original complaint, supports this factor weighing more strongly against exercising our discretion to deny the Petition. See id. at 82. Accordingly, in view of the parties’ respective arguments, we find that factor 3 weighs strongly against discretionary denial. 4. Overlapping Issues with the Parallel Proceeding Under this factor, Petitioner stipulates that “[i]f the Board institutes trial, Petitioner will cease asserting in the co-pending litigation the combination of references on which trial is instituted for the claims, to the extent Petitioner even asserts the same combination in the district court.” Pet. 83. We find that this stipulation “mitigates to some degree the concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board, as well as concerns for potentially conflicting decisions.” Sand at 12. More specifically, if we institute, then by stipulation the court in the Cisco litigation will not have to determine whether the challenged claims of the ’279 patent would have been obvious in view of Kovvali, Kalman, Masters, and RFC 2892, and therefore the risk of inconsistent results is also reduced. against discretionary denial because the stipulation is limited in nature.10 Prelim. Resp. 20. We agree, and therefore find this factor weighs slightly against discretionary denial. Sand at 12 n.5 (“Petitioner stipulates only that it will not pursue, in district court, the ‘same grounds’ presented in the Petition in this case. . . . Petitioner could have stipulated that it would not pursue any grounds raised or that could have reasonable been raised in an IPR . . . . Doing so might have tipped this factor more conclusively in its favor.”).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Decision below, Petitioner relies on Kovvali alone as teaching all but two steps recited in independent claim 1, and Petitioner similarly relies on Kovvali alone as teaching all but two limitations of independent claim 15. See Pet. 26–50, 63–64. For those additional steps and limitations, Petitioner relies on combined teachings of Kovvali and Kalman. See id. at 42–47. As Petitioner points out and Patent Owner acknowledges, however, Kovvali was not previously presented to the Office during prosecution of the application for the ’279 patent. See id. at 80; Prelim. Resp. 26. Moreover, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s assertion that Drake has “similar[ities] to how Petitioner characterizes Kovvali,” Patent Owner identifies only that “Drake teaches a ‘management system for local area networks’ that features an ‘allocator,’ which determined ‘if requested facilities are available, and if so, reserves these facilities for the requesting station.’” Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2003, code (57)). In contrast, Petitioner’s reliance on Kovvali goes significantly beyond such high-level generalizations, providing a detailed mapping of Kovvali’s teachings to, for limitations [15.1]–[15.5] and [15.8] of independent claim 15, as well as to the additional limitations recited in each of dependent claims 2, 5, 11–14, and 18, with supporting testimony from Dr. Mir’s declaration. Pet. 27–42, 48–51, 55–56, 59–64, 67 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–103, 120–130, 146–150, 160–185). Notably, Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s arguments with respect to those limitations at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. Nor does Patent Owner cite any evidence of arguments substantially the same as those presented by Petitioner having been presented during prosecution. Accordingly, on this record and after taking into account Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), cited by Advanced Bionics as relevant to the first part of the two-part framework set forth therein (see Advanced Bionics at 9–10), we are not persuaded that the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. Accordingly, we need not proceed to the second part of the framework, and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the 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)); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Therefore, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the ’279 patent in January 2001 “would have had a working knowledge of the network communication technologies that are pertinent to the ’279 patent, including network flow allocation in a ring topology.” Pet. 12. More specifically, Petitioner argues, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications and resource allocations,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner represents that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition” for the purposes of the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 3. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’279 patent, and, therefore, we likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,035,279 - Apple Inc. v. Ald Social, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01399 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against ALD Social, LLC on claims 1–16 of the ’158 patent and terminated IPR2023-01399 after finding Patent Owner unequivocally abandoned the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding, and abandonment of the contest is construed by the Board to be a request for adverse judgment. See IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)); IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)). Our orders also stated: Under the specific circumstances of this case, we determine Patent Owner’s failure to file long-overdue mandatory notices required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) to demonstrate Patent Owner’s abandonment of the contest. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c), in the particular circumstances of this case, and in the interests of justice, we set a deadline for Patent Owner to file mandatory notices pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) no later than June 10, 2024. IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 4 (emphasis in original); IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 4 (emphasis in original). Our orders further explained that we “would view, in the particular circumstances of this case, Patent Owner’s filing of mandatory notices by the deadline as an indication that Patent Owner had not abandoned the contest.” IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 4; IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 4.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 9,402,158 - Apple Inc. v. Ald Social, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01398 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against ALD Social, LLC on claims 1–14 of the ’054 patent and terminated IPR2023-01398 after finding unequivocal abandonment.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding, and abandonment of the contest is construed by the Board to be a request for adverse judgment. See IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)); IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)). Our orders also stated: Under the specific circumstances of this case, we determine Patent Owner’s failure to file long-overdue mandatory notices required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) to demonstrate Patent Owner’s abandonment of the contest. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c), in the particular circumstances of this case, and in the interests of justice, we set a deadline for Patent Owner to file mandatory notices pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) no later than June 10, 2024. IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 4 (emphasis in original); IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 4 (emphasis in original). Our orders further explained that we “would view, in the particular circumstances of this case, Patent Owner’s filing of mandatory notices by the deadline as an indication that Patent Owner had not abandoned the contest.” IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 4; IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 4.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 9,198,054 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00342 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang and over Prajapat and Wang; the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“3. May Not Enlarge the Claim Scope An amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the” slip op. at 87
- Strike new argumentDenied
“comprise briefs filed by Petitioner in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the parallel district court litigation involving the challenged patents. The exhibits were submitted together with Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 33). We have not relied on Exhibit 2006 or Exhibit 2007 in our analysis. Accordingly, we deny the motion as moot.” slip op. at 9
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2005–” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining compatible embodiments, and we credit Dr. Lieberman’s testimony because he supports his testimony with a passage from Lebrun that is consistent with his conclusion. Id. (stating “Lebrun describes several ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ which includes a subsection of ‘multiple group surfing channels.’ Ex. 1005, 37:19, 43:5 (emphasis in original).”). Consistent with Lebrun’s description, Dr. Lieberman opines, and we agree, that “[a] POSITA would understand ‘multiple group surfing channels’ would be one example/scenario of the ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ and the latter encompasses the former and the two embodiments are compatible and combinable.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 18.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 8,527,591 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,527,591 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,483,448 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,145 - Apple Inc. v. Ald Social LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01399 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Wolfe renders claim 1 obvious under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review is under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, the information presented in the Petition must show “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).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“factors, 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) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The asserted prior art, like the challenged patent, presents high-level schematics and functional descriptions of various system components used in monitoring events and crowd behavior using location-based services. These system components largely include servers, websites, and mobile telephones utilizing wireless technologies, such as Wi-Fi, cellular, and global positioning system (GPS) to communicate and generate location data regarding mobile devices, as well as the use of databases to store historical information related to location-based services. The prior art and the patent provide description of monitoring crowd behavior by tracking the location of groups of mobile devices. Neither the challenged patent nor the asserted” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“we agree with Petitioner that “[t]he specification does not provide any explicit definition.” Pet. 14. The written description, however, indicates “[a] viral event is defined as occurring when one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed, as determined in the exemplary embodiment in the Network Monitor 302.” Ex. 1001, 4:45–48. As Petitioner notes, the written description also provides examples of predefined parameter thresholds used by Network Monitor 302 “to determine if the monitored network indicates that a viral event may be occurring or impending.” Ex. 1001, 5:14–16; Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:16–20). Examples of predefined parameter thresholds include an excessive number of wireless devices in an area, excessive use of wireless devices in an area, two highly dense clusters of wireless devices converging at a significant rate of speed, and the difference in the number of wireless devices in an area exceeds a threshold over consecutive time periods. Ex. 1001, 5:15–20, 5:31–35, 5:41–42 (“to assess the number . . . of wireless devices”), 5:55–57; see Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:31–36, 5:51–57). As such, the written description describes parameter thresholds related to number, use, and movement of wireless devices being used to determine whether a viral event may be occurring.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableInstituted
“institution. On this preliminary record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that responsive to the network monitor observing a significant aggregation of devices in a particular area, application 322 functions as a crowd risk determinant because the application 322 assesses the needs arising from the aggregation of devices in that area. Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 46. Additionally, although the example provided in Wolfe relates to determining the number of pizza slices needed based on how many devices are in particular location, on this preliminary record, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement a similar risk analysis to determine that police patrols would be needed in a particular area, as taught by Wolfe, based on the determination of crowd’s location, activity, and movement. Id. at 14.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,402,158 - Apple Inc. v. Ald Social, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01398 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Wolfe and Pfeffer.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Guy (Ex. 1003), Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the field of crowd analysis and location-based computing” and would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science/computer engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of crowd analysis and location-based computing.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner further notes that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of this Institution Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 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 petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“agree with Petitioner that “[t]he specification does not provide any explicit definition” for “indication of a viral event.” Pet. 13. The written description, however, indicates “[a] viral event is defined as occurring when one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed, as determined in the exemplary embodiment in the Network Monitor 302.” Ex. 1001, 4:40–43. As Petitioner notes, the written description also provides examples of predefined parameter thresholds used by Network Monitor 302 “to determine if the monitored network indicates that a viral event may be occurring or impending.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–12; Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:9–15). Examples of predefined parameter thresholds include an excessive number of wireless devices in an area, excessive use of wireless devices in an area, two highly dense clusters of wireless devices converging at a significant rate of speed, and the difference in the number of wireless devices in an area exceeds a threshold over consecutive time periods. Ex. 1001, 5:12–14, 5:27–31, 5:35 (“to assess the number . . . of wireless devices”), 5:48–51; see Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:26–31, 5:45–51). As such, the written description describes parameter thresholds related to number, use, and movement of wireless devices being used to determine whether a viral event may be occurring.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“4. The Combination of Wolfe and Pfeffer To demonstrate obviousness, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. More specifically, to prevail, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that “a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Regarding the required articulate reasoning, Petitioner contends that “[a]lthough Wolfe teaches providing relevant crowd information to police, Wolfe does not provide the details for how to alert and notify the police.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 14). “Pfeffer, however, fills in Wolfe’s details by specifically teaching techniques for receiving information about crowds, evaluating the information, and alerting first responders when needed,” according to Petitioner. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶¶ 6, 40–41). Petitioner also contends that the combination would provide additional benefits to Wolfe’s system from Pfeffer’s additional features, such as providing “continuous updates to the incident scenario model saved for future use, recommendations for the most effective methods to respond to the incident based on past responses and current trends, and determining if an incident should be elevated based on the number of people involved in the incident.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 28, 77, 85). Regarding the required expectation of success, Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have found the combination of Wolfe and Pfeffer predictable” because they are similar in that “both systems analyze crowd information to identify safety risks.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75; Ex. 1004, Abstract, ¶¶ 11, 14; Ex. 1005 ¶ 28). Petitioner further asserts that “[a] POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success when combining Wolfe and Pfeffer because [they] are implemented in the same manner,” with both being implemented on servers and with Pfeffer indicating that its techniques could be “any combination of software and/or hardware that is configured to perform one or more tasks.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70, 74; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 32). Petitioner also contends “the combination would use known techniques (Pfeffer’s implementation details of an incident response method) to improve a similar system (Wolfe’s crowd detection and incident response system) in the same way (providing crowd details and incident information to first responders so that they may better respond to comprised crowd safety).” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–79). Petitioner’s showing (Pet. 23–27) of articulated reasoning to support” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,198,054 - T-Mobile USA v. Dali Wireless, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00830 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–11, 13–16, 18, and 19 are anticipated by Wu; claims 6, 7, 12, and 17 are obvious over Wu and Sabat-552.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“an educational background in electrical engineering and experience in the design of wireless communication systems,” and “[m]ore particularly, a POSA would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or a similar technical degree or equivalent work experience) and at least 3 years of experience working with wireless communication systems.” PO Resp. 13. We found in the Decision on Institution that Patent Owner’s definition was generally consistent with Petitioner’s definition, with the exception of requiring 3 years or more (as opposed to 2 to 3 years) of work experience in wireless communication systems and, for the purpose of institution, we adopted Petitioner’s provided definition for the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. Dec. on Inst. 20–21. The record does not contain further argument or evidence regarding the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and we again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which does not encompass an open-ended (“at least 3 years”) amount of experience and which is supported by the testimony of Dr. open-ended terminology from Patent Owner’s definition and adopt that definition.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“b) Our Conclusion We conclude that the proper construction of “digital representation of a . . . set of radio resources” encompasses user payload data packaged in or combined with RF carrier channels. We further conclude that “digital representation of a . . . set of radio resources” is not limited to and does not necessarily include configuration information that is required to or used to reconfigure remote radio units.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“packetize” or “packetizing” as recited in claims 2, 9, and 14. PO Resp. 19– 20; Pet. Reply 5–6. Patent Owner argues that we should construe “packetize” to mean “create data packets that include destination information.” PO Resp. 19–20. Patent Owner argues that this is consistent with how the Board previously interpreted this claim term in the 00571 IPR. PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1017). We do not need to construe “packetizing” because collateral estoppel prevents Patent Owner from arguing that Wu does not disclose “packetizing” as explained below. We also do not need to construe any other terms to resolve the disputes before us. 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 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“When deciding whether issue preclusion applies, we consider whether: (1) a prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party. VirnetX Inc. v Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). To the extent Petitioner asks us to consider the 01473 IPR institution decision for issue preclusion, we do not. In that decision the Board reached a finding based on the institution standard (showing of a “reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail,” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)) rather than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which is before us now (35 U.S.C. § 316(e)). Ex. 1016. Thus, issues before us here were not presented and adjudged in that institution decision. Regarding the 01473 IPR adverse judgment decision, that decision did not require determination of any issues before us, as that decision was based on Patent Owner canceling the challenged claims rather than any determination regarding unpatentability that had been shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Ex. 1014. 2. Collateral Estoppel With Respect to the 00571 IPR We find and determine that the final written decision in the 00571 IPR, and the Federal Circuit’s CommScope decision affirming that decision, satisfies the conditions for applying collateral estoppel because the 00571 discloses materially the same claim limitations7 challenged here, and Patent Owner had full representation throughout the proceedings. Setting aside the factors of issue preclusion for a moment, our reviewing court’s affirmance of our final written decision in CommScope is persuasive authority that supports our prior construction of “packetizing” and Petitioner’s showing that Wu teaches the disputed packetizing limitations under that construction. In addition, issue preclusion prevents Patent Owner from re-litigating the issue of whether Wu teaches materially the same disputed limitation. See Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1017, 31–34 (final written decision determining obviousness of claims 9, 10, 14, and 16 of the ’473 patent over Wu and Sabat-426); Ex. 1072, 5 (summarizing the final written decision regarding the packetizing limitations), 10–16 (finding no error in the determinations regarding the packetizing limitations).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,334,499 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,334,499
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.