- PTAB · Mar 5, 2025 · IPR2024-01111 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 9 would be obvious over Gallagher and Schofield.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Texas litigation, but significant work still remains to be done. See Ex. 2004. Moreover, we agree that Petitioner filed the Petition expeditiously. See 2nd Prelim. Reply 4. Accordingly, the facts underlying this factor weigh strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“h. Conclusion Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 9 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Gallaher and Schofield.” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party proposes a definition for any claim term. See Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 4–5. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. We note that this determination does not preclude the parties from arguing their proposed constructions of the claims during trial. Indeed, the parties are hereby given notice that claim construction, in general, is an issue to be addressed at trial. A final determination as to claim construction will be made at the close of the proceeding, after any hearing, based on all the evidence of record. The parties are expected to assert all of their claim construction arguments and evidence during the trial as permitted by our rules. slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not advanced persuasive evidence to put into dispute Petitioner’s identification of itself as the sole real party in interest. Patent Owner asserts that the two third parties it seeks to add as defendants in the Texas Litigation produce products that incorporate components manufactured by Petitioner and that Patent Owner has asserted that these Petitioner products infringe the ’328 patent in the Texas Litigation. Prelim. Sur-reply 4–5. Patent Owner also asserts that these two third parties asserted an obligation to defend Petitioner and the other third party against Patent Owner’s infringement assertions. Id. at 5. However, Patent Owner does not assert or provide any evidence that Petitioner must indemnify any of the three third parties or that any of the third parties controls any aspect of this inter partes review proceeding. See id. Moreover, Petitioner stipulates that, if we institute inter partes review in this proceeding, it will not pursue in the Texas Litigation “‘any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have raised’ during this proceeding.” Prelim. Reply 4 (alteration in original) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential in relevant part)). Furthermore, to the extent that the two parties Patent Owner seeks to add as defendants in the Texas Litigation should be named as real parties in interest in this proceeding, those parties have also filed a stipulation here (see Ex. 1024), alleviating any concerns of conflict with district court litigation.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,328 - PTAB · Mar 5, 2025 · IPR2024-01110 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claim 15 based on Gallagher and Lumia, finding a reasonable likelihood that the combination renders the claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“7. Holistic Assessment of the Fintiv Factors On this record, after weighing all of the factors and taking a holistic view, we determine that the facts in this case that weigh against exercising discretion outweigh the facts that favor exercising discretion. Accordingly, we determine that the circumstances presented weigh against exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review based on the Texas litigation.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“dispute Petitioner’s identification of itself as the sole real party in interest. Patent Owner asserts that the two third parties it seeks to add as defendants in the Texas Litigation produce products that incorporate components manufactured by Petitioner and that Patent Owner has asserted that these Petitioner products infringe the ’255 patent in the Texas Litigation. Prelim. Sur-reply 4. Patent Owner also asserts that these two third parties asserted an obligation to defend Petitioner and the other third party against Patent Owner’s infringement assertions. Id. However, Patent Owner does not assert or provide any evidence that Petitioner must indemnify any of the three third parties or that any of the third parties controls any aspect of this inter partes review proceeding. See id. Moreover, Petitioner stipulates that, if we institute inter partes review in this proceeding, it will not pursue in the Texas Litigation “‘any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have raised’ during this proceeding.” Prelim. Reply 4 (alteration in original) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential in relevant part)). Furthermore, to the extent that the two parties Patent Owner seeks to add as defendants in the Texas Litigation should be named as real parties in interest in this proceeding, those parties have also filed a stipulation here (see Ex. 1024), alleviating any concerns of conflict with district court litigation.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 15 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Gallagher and Lumia.” slip op. at 31
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Here, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 12–14 and 17–23. Prelim. Resp. 1; Ex. 2002. Based on our review of Exhibit 2002, we determine that a disclaimer of claims 12–14 and 17–23 of the ’255 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been filed with the Office as of December 9, 2024. Based on the information in the public record, we find that the disclaimer complies with the above-listed requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Because claims 12–14 and 17–23 have been disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a), in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), we do not reach challenges to claims 12–14 and 17–23. As a result, the remaining challenged claim is claim 15 (“the challenged claim”).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,335,255 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00846 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–29, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–13, 15, 16, 18–24, and 26–29 are obvious over Burger.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of the ’954 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“‘access message’ is a message enabling entry to, communication with, or use of an object,” but argues that, “to capture all the disclosed embodiments,” we should construe “access message” to mean “a signal or notification enabling or announcing access,” allegedly consistent with a district court construction. Prelim. Resp. 2–7. As Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success under the arguably narrower ordinary meaning of further construe this term. Based on the preliminary record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that “it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to incorporate the age verification method of Robinson in Burger so that Burger’s system can be used by businesses interested in conducting transactions that require age-verification.” Pet. 93. Petitioner argues that it would have been predictable to include Robinson’s age-verification feature in Burger’s system in light of Robinson’s explanation that merchants and their employees face penalties if they sell age-restricted goods (e.g., alcohol or tobacco) to underage individuals. Id. at 94–95 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–80). Dr. Traynor testifies that there would have been “a reasonable expectation of success because it merely involves combining known elements in a manner that would have been easily implemented and obvious to” a skilled artisan. Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. At this stage of the proceeding, we credit Dr. Traynor’s uncontroverted testimony. As to claims 3, 14, and 17, Petitioner points to Robinson’s description of a user registering a biometric sample, identity-verifying information (SID), and age-verifying information with a database of an age-verification system. Pet. 95–96 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 28, 43, 48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175– 178). Petitioner argues that, in the combination of Burger and Robinson, Robinson’s age-verifying information would be stored in the database of Burger’s network server 114. Id. at 95 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 176). Patent Owner does not yet provide separate arguments for claims 3, 14, and 17. Prelim. Resp. 26. On the current record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Robinson teaches the additional limitations of claims 3, 14, and 17, and that a skilled Burger and Robinson.” slip op. at 29
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Petitioner contends that Burger’s pocket vault 102 is “an integrated device.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 94–95, 118, 134, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). Petitioner argues that write-once memory 212, a storage element that is not capable of being subsequently altered, persistently stores biometric data of the user, and that other hard-wired memory stores a pocket vault ID and encryption/decryption information. Id. at 24–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 112, 114, 118, 127, 129, 154, 182, 551–552, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23, 91–96). Dr. Traynor testifies that it would have been obvious to implement the hardwired memory as protected, write-once memory so that sensitive information that is not subject to change (e.g., device ID, encryption information) is kept secure and not tampered with. Ex. 1003 ¶ 98. We credit this testimony at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - Iriusrisk, Inc. v. Threatmodeler Software Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · IPR2023-00821 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable as anticipated by Jones; claims 2 and 4–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Jones, Zheng, and Keenan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“9 In arguing that Jones does not disclose a “predefined interrelated group” of threat model components, Patent Owner, in a footnote, alleges that the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, is “tainted by bias” arising from his “personal and professional connections” to Petitioner. PO Resp. 27 n.4; see PO Sur-reply 21–22. Patent Owner cites no authority to show that such connections necessarily render expert testimony biased, and identifies no actual testimony of Mr. Hurlbut that it alleges to be driven only by bias. On the other hand, Petitioner submits that Mr. Hurlbut also has personal and professional connections to Patent Owner—it’s a small world. See Pet. Reply 24 (“Mr. Hurlbut personally knows Mr. Agarwal, [Patent Owner’s] CEO and inventor of the ’008 patent.”). In this case, we assess the credibility of both parties’ experts based on the plausibility of and support for their testimony, and weigh such testimony accordingly. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) at 32 (“[T]he credibility of experts often turns less on demeanor and more on the plausibility of their theories.”), 35 (“The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.”); see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019).” slip op. at 37
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 10,699,008 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,699,008 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00806 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 9–12, and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over either Roberts and Asokan or Suumäki; claims 6–8 and 19 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Schmidt’s testimony, has proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a degree in computer engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, along with 2 years of professional experience in the fields of networking and network-based systems or applications, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience,” and would have been “aware of and generally knowledgeable about how devices were provisioned onto wireless networks, along with standards applicable to well-known methods for communication such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC available at the time the ’615 patent was filed.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Institution Decision, we considered the assertions of Petitioner that the terms of the ’615 patent’s claims do not require further construction and can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning. Dec. to Inst. 7 (citing Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–82). Patent Owner also does not assert any express constructions. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. Given the lack of controversy, we need not explicitly adopt or discuss any explicit constructions in this decision. 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 9
- BurdenMixed
“that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner’s argument. Although Petitioner is correct that Roberts discloses different embodiments for conveying configuration information, those embodiments are distinct. See Ex. 1004, that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,050,615 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,050,615 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01353 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Staniford’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of industry experience,” and “would have had a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23, 25). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“We largely agree with Patent Owner that there is no explicit claim- construction dispute. We address Patent Owner’s issues of what ordinarily skilled artisans would have considered in creating and implementing packetfiltering rules in the discussion below. The preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption is one aspect that those with a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks would have considered. Nonetheless, overall, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to prevent an exfiltration operation,” does not require preventing all exfiltrations from occurring, nor allowing all non-exfiltration traffic, and that we need not consider the preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption in the context of that claim construction. We determine that no claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00233 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Ludtke or Ludtke and Kon.
RulingsInstitution decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The Samsung DDI does not provide a basis for further limiting a “third-party trusted authority,” or “third party that operates a trusted authority,” to exclude any active participant in a transaction. This would exclude the trusted key authority of the preferred embodiments of the ’954 patent, which actively participates in a transaction, for example by receiving a request for authentication with a code, determining whether the code is valid, authenticating the code, and transmitting an access code to the requester, which allows a user access to an application. Ex. 1001, 8:5–17, Fig. 7. Although the trusted key authority in this example is not a principal party to the transaction (here, those parties are the user and the application), it is an active participant in facilitating the transaction. In another preferred embodiment of the ’954 patent, trusted key authority 320 plays an active role in transactions, e.g., verifying to a grocery store that a biometric key presented by a customer is legitimate, thereby allowing the transaction to proceed. Id. at 6:37–51, Figs. 3–4. However, despite the trusted key authority’s active participation, the parties to such a transaction are the customer and the grocery store, not trusted key authority 320. The “witness” role mentioned in the Specification (Ex. 1001, 7:30–33) refers to an agent’s relationship to the principal parties to the transaction, not to the level of activity the agent engages in. See id. at 7:27–59, Fig. 5 (describing activities of an agent). Patent Owner’s proposed clarifications, or modifications, to the Samsung DDI’s construction of “third-party trusted authority,” which would exclude these embodiments, are presumptively incorrect. See Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The Federal Circuit “recognize[s] that ‘[a] claim construction exclud[ing] a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct.’” (quoting Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., 34 F.4th 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (second and third alterations in original)). Indeed, Patent Owner’s view would transform any entity that is accessed for any reason in a transaction into a party to that transaction, thus excluding it from the scope of a “third party that operates a trusted authority.” Patent Owner, however, has advanced no persuasive support for such a narrow reading of the claims. Accordingly, we adopt the Samsung DDI’s construction without Patent Owner’s modifications. On the current record, a “third party that operates a trusted authority” is “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. Remaining claim terms Based on the preliminary record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of skill in the art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering or an equivalent engineering discipline, and at least three years of experience in the field of encryption and security, or the equivalent,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–32, 53–55). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill or propose an alternative. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that Kon describes registering and storing a user’s age in association with a user device’s device ID. Pet. 63–67 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 194, 234, 241, 265–266, Figs. 5, 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 184–185). Petitioner argues that “[t]he user’s age, like the biometric information, provides another data point for identifying the user,” and would have been especially useful when a transaction has an age minimum, such as purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. Id. at 68 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 186–187). Accordingly, Petitioner argues, a skilled artisan would have registered a user’s age, as taught by Kon, with Ludtke’s device ID to facilitate age-prohibitive transactions. Id. Petitioner makes the same arguments for claims 10 and 13. Pet. 69 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 188). Patent Owner does not yet provide separate arguments for claims 3, 14, and 17. On the current record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Kon teaches the additional limitations of claims 3, 14, and 17, and that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, for combining Ludtke and Kon.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - Google LLC v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00234 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 9–18 based on the asserted obviousness grounds over Ludtke and Ludtke with Kon.
RulingsInstitution decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The Samsung DDI does not provide a basis for further limiting a “third-party trusted authority” to exclude any active participant in a transaction. This would exclude the trusted key authority of the preferred embodiments of the ’730 patent, which actively participates in a transaction, for example by receiving a request for authentication with a code, determining whether the code is valid, authenticating the code, and transmitting an access code to the requester, which allows a user access to an application. Ex. 1001, 8:8–20, Fig. 7. Although the trusted key authority in this example is not a principal party to the transaction (here, the parties are the user and the application), it is an active participant in facilitating the transaction. In another preferred embodiment of the ’905 Patent, trusted key authority 320 plays an active role in transactions, e.g., verifying to a grocery store that a biometric key presented by a customer is legitimate, thereby allowing the transaction to proceed. Id. at 6:39–53, Figs. 3–4. However, despite trusted key authority’s active participation, the parties to such a transaction are the customer and the grocery store, not trusted key authority 320. The “witness” role mentioned in the Specification (Ex. 1001, 7:33–36) refers to an agent’s relationship to the principal parties to the transaction, not to level of activity the agent engages in. See id. at 7:30–642, Fig. 5 (describing activities of an agent). Patent Owner’s proposed clarifications, or modifications, to the Samsung DDI’s construction of “third-party trusted authority,” which would exclude these embodiments, is presumptively incorrect. See Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“The Federal Circuit “recognize[s] that ‘[a] claim construction exclud[ing] a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct.’” (quoting Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., 34 F.4th 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (second and third alterations in original)). Indeed, Patent Owner’s view would transform any entity that is accessed for any reason in a transaction into a party to that transaction, thus excluding it from the scope of a “third-party trusted authority.” Patent Owner, however, has advanced no persuasive support for such a narrow reading of the claims. Accordingly, we adopt the Samsung DDI’s construction without Patent Owner’s modifications. On the current record, a “third-party trusted authority” is “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. Remaining claim terms Based on the preliminary record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering or an equivalent engineering discipline, and at least three years of experience in the field of encryption and security, or the equivalent,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–32, 54–56). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill or propose an alternative. See Prelim. Resp. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’905 Patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’905 Patent and cited prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that Kon describes registering and storing a user’s age in association with a user device’s device ID. Pet. 43–46 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 194, 234, 241, 264–265, Figs. 5, 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–70). Petitioner argues that “[t]he user’s age, like the biometric information, provides another data point for identifying the user,” and would have been especially useful when a transaction has an age minimum, such as purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 152–153). Accordingly, Petitioner argues, a skilled artisan would have registered a user’s age, as taught by Kon, with Ludtke’s device ID to facilitate age-prohibitive transactions. Id. Petitioner makes the same arguments for claim 11. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 155). Patent Owner does not yet provide separate arguments for claims 2 and 11. See Prelim. Resp. On the current record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Kon teaches the additional limitations of claims 2 and 11, and that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, for combining Ludtke and Kon.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,298,905 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01329 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Law; the Board did not reach the additional grounds based on Wood or Jungck.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Jacobson’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of professional experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attack.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner cites to the ’1154 decision, and that panel’s assertion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it is the level that it adopts. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 25–30). Reviewing both statements, we determine no substantive differences between the two, and continue to adopt the level adopted in the Decision to Institute. See Dec. to Inst. 12–13.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 should be found to be limiting because those preambles provide antecedent basis for multiple limitations recited later in the claims, and because the limitations in the preambles “give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 38–39; Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Per the Institution Decision, we continue to find the preambles of the independent claims to be limiting. See Dec. to Inst. 14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. A review of the ’266 Patent does not show the disclosure of “initial dynamic security policy,” or equivalent, and the cited sections (Ex. 1001, 14:13–31) also do not discuss such extra limitations. The ’266 Patent provides: Security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more packet security gateways within network environment 100. … For example, security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118 on a periodic basis, under specified network conditions, whenever security policy management server 120 receives a new dynamic security policy, whenever a dynamic security policy stored on security policy management server 120 is changed or altered, or in response to a request from one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118. Ex. 1001, 13:35–50 (emphasis added). Per this disclosure, the PSGs may receive multiple DSPs from the SPMS, with different PSGs receiving different DSPs. This disclosure undercuts the argument that the first set of packet filtering rules needs to be an initial set. We also disagree that this would require the PSGs to produce DSPs; rather, the SPMS would still create and update the DSPs, on an on-going basis, such that a second set can be updated by third set, with that second set being an initial set with respect to the third set, etc. Additionally, the structure of independent claim 1, for example, is directed to a method of filtering packets, such that the claim may read upon a network environment where the plurality of PSGs already contain a DSP, application of another DSP with a first set of packet rules, that are subsequently updated. As such, we are unpersuaded that the implicit claim construction determined in the Institution Decision was incorrect and not in keeping with the language of the claim and the scope of the disclosure of the ’266 Patent.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner also cites claim constructions that have been adopted in previous IPR proceedings (PO Resp. 12–13), but asserts that “these proceedings do not turn on these constructions, and thus these constructions are not necessary. Id. (citing See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner with respect to the additional listed claim limitations and determine that no other claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 10,785,266 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,785,266 - Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00037 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the asserted combinations taught the claimed limitations or provide a persuasive reason to combine Jiang and Chen.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“algorithm on Chen’s plurality of clusters of processors, the Petition contends that Jiang alone teaches limitations 1(d) and 1(e) in disclosing assigning an initial score to each of the initial nodes of a prefix tree, then using these initial scores to determine, via pruning, whether to continue processing branches connected to the nodes. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1004, 8–64); see id. at 31–44. We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not explain how Jiang’s pruning would be implemented in Chen’s multiple clusters of processors to generate an initial score for an audio sample, and to use the initial score “to determine whether to continue processing” as required by limitations 1(d) and 1(e). In contending that Jiang alone teaches limitations 1(d) and 1(e), the Petition quotes from Jiang’s description of its pruning technique:” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“in the Petition, and is therefore untimely. PO Sur-Reply 4. We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition relies on Jiang alone to teach limitations 1(d) and 1(e), as discussed above. Petitioner’s contention that Jiang’s algorithm would have been replicated across Chen’s processors for performing limitations 1(d) and 1(e) is not found in the Petition. Rather, as discussed above, the Petition describes how Jiang’s algorithm would have been replicated for performing limitations 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c). Petitioner’s new theory in Reply is untimely. A “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) 73;2 see also Intelligent Bio-” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“inconsistent with Jiang’s teaching that pruning is performed by comparing a score at a particular node to the maximum score for other corresponding nodes in the prefix tree. Ex. 1004, 8:55–64. We rely on Dr. Anderson’s testimony, that a parallel implementation of Jiang’s algorithm “requires extensive communication between computational components” and that “all four memories 104(a)-(d) would contain necessary information” to perform limitations 1(d) and 1(e), in finding that performing Jiang’s algorithm using Chen’s clusters of processors would have required the processors to access data in all of the cluster memories 104a-d in order to determine the scores of the corresponding nodes of the tree. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 29, 51.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“We do not need to resolve this dispute, because even under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill, Petitioner has not shown that the challenged claims are unpatentable. We apply Petitioner’s definition that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with four years of experience in the field of speech recognition, and that additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,971,140 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,971,140
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.