• PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 8–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2–7 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not establish motivation to combine for their error-processing limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent field” and “two years of prior experience with image capturing/scanning technology, involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 45). Petitioner further asserts that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (Inst. Dec. 16), and neither party alleges that a different level of ordinary skill should be applied in this proceeding (see PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply). In this Decision, we again adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner. We are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of and the asserted prior art. Accord Inst. Dec. 15–16.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “In the Petition, Petitioner states that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms or phrases (Pet. 12–14), but for two phrases in claim 1, Petitioner specifically argues that the prior art teaches or suggests the phrase under each of two alternate meanings (id. at 34–35, 37). In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner’s primary understanding of these phrases and, as a result, did not reach the alternative contentions. Inst. Dec. 33 n.18, 38 n.21. At trial, Patent Owner states that claim construction is unnecessary to resolve the issues disputed in this proceeding. PO Resp. 6; Tr. 46:4–16. Petitioner agrees, but contends that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding dependent claim 3 are premised on a narrowing construction of one of its terms. Tr. 15:4–16:2. Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms in that claim should apply. Id. at 46:12–16. We agree that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad 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

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “motivated to add error processing to Garcia’s mobile phone so that it could address errors before transmitting the check image in order “to avoid wasting communications resources and adding delays.” Pet. 42. But, Petitioner does not support this rationale with a persuasive explanation or evidence. Indeed, we assume that Petitioner’s theory is that the error checking at the mobile device would have conserved bandwidth and reduced delay because it would have allowed the mobile device to identify some unsuitable images before they were sent to the payee bank; however, the Petition does not actually include an explanation to this effect. Rather, it simply states that an ordinary artisan would have known that mobile telephone networks (such as that used by Garcia) “are bandwidth and resource-constrained, and that communications over such networks takes time.” Id.; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 115. However, all networks have bandwidth and resource constraints, and all communications take time, and neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry explain why these considerations would have been relevant to an ordinary artisan implementing Garcia. Indeed, the Petition next asserts that “Byrne provides the requisite solution to this problem” (Pet. 42), but neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry identify any problem. For example, Dr. Mowry does not testify that an ordinary artisan would have expected Garcia’s system to consume excessive bandwidth or incur for claim 2). In addition, Petitioner recognizes that the verification process is performed by the payee bank in Garcia, yet does not address the fact that its proposal would apparently shift a portion of the verification process to the mobile phone. See Pet. 40–44. Dr. Mowry’s trial testimony casts further doubt on Petitioner’s rationale for this claim. Dr. Mowry testifies that conserving bandwidth would “potentially” have been one of the goals of an ordinary artisan “depend[ing] on how precious their resource is.” Ex. 2020, 68:12–24. But Dr. Mowry “wouldn’t necessarily characterize [Garcia] as bandwidth intensive.” Id. at 76:13–23. In addition, he disagreed that “in the Garcia system, the motivation would have been to shift it to the client side for the verification,” noting simply that “[t]here are tradeoffs” associated with doing the verification processing on either the client or the server. Id. at 241:22– 242:13. Petitioner attempts to limit the impact of Dr. Mowry’s answers (Pet. Reply 16); however, the fact remains that Petitioner has the burden of proof, and it does not identify persuasive evidence to support its contention. Petitioner’s Reply asserts that these considerations were “particularly important in 2006, when 3G bandwidth was at a premium” (id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶ 49)), but neither Petitioner nor Dr. Mowry provide analysis or evidence to support this conclusory assertion. Moreover, the Petition also fails to address whether the proposed combination would have, in fact, conserved communications resources or reduced delays. In Petitioner’s proposed combination, Byrne’s thin client application would be downloaded to Garcia’s mobile phone at each use (which would require communication resources and incur latency), but the Petition fails to address whether the net result of the proposed combination 148:1 (Dr. Mowry agreeing that the impact of downloading the thin client is not discussed in his report). Moreover, Garcia touts the “speed” of its process, stating that its “immediate processing . . . allows the immediate availability in the user’s account” (Ex. 1003, 7:18–8:3), which indicates that an ordinary artisan would not have perceived a problematic delay in Garcia’s system. Petitioner’s attempt to shift the burden to Patent Owner to determine whether or not its purported benefits would be realized (see Pet. Reply 17) is unavailing. In its Reply, Petitioner cites testimony from Dr. Mowry (see Ex. 1029 ¶ 37), but it simply compares the size of a compressed image with the size of a “large” application. This evidence does not outweigh the other evidence above, and it was submitted too late to remedy the Petition. See supra § II.A.; see also Trial Practice Guide 73 (explaining that a petitioner “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”). Finally, on this record, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 60

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application by downloading, onto the mobile device, a thin client application, as disclosed by Byrne. See Pet. 19–25. Byrne touts the benefits of downloading a thin client rather than storing an application on a user’s device (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 45– 46; see also id. ¶¶ 47–48), and Dr. Mowry testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood downloading a thin client to be a well-known way of distributing software in the relevant time period and suited for mobile devices (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–65, 70). In addition, Dr. Mowry testifies that a thin client improves security and ease of software maintenance. Id. ¶ 65 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 46–47); see also Ex. 1033, 140:11–141:2 (Dr. Creusere agreeing that thin clients “dramatically simplif[y]” software maintenance), 143:13–20 (agreeing that security is important for financial data); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–21 (evidence that the general background knowledge in the art identifies security as a concern for remote check deposit).14 In addition, we agree with Petitioner (see Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 72) that an ordinary artisan would have understood such an implementation to apply a known 14 Patent Owner’s argument that security and software maintenance would have instead weighed against the proposed combination (see, e.g., PO Sur-reply 9–10) is untimely because it was not advanced in the Response and is not fairly responsive to the Reply. See supra § II.A; Pet. Reply 15–16 (noting that the Response had not addressed these issues). Moreover, even if this argument had been properly raised, it would not be persuasive because Patent Owner does not identify persuasive evidence to support its position. See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). (Garcia’s mobile phone) with predictable results. We are also persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application such that the application provides a user-interface and controls the image capture device, as disclosed by Byrne. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23. Garcia suggests that the application should perform these functions (see Ex. 1003, 5:1–6:10, 9:19– 10:18), and we credit Dr. Mowry’s testimony that an ordinary artisan would find this desirable (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65, 67). Moreover, the references lend themselves to the combination because Garcia and Byrne both describe remotely depositing a check via the Internet using software on a user’s device that opens an interactive session, and both perform substantially similar steps. See Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1003, 9:21–10:3, 10:10–18, 11:7–15; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41, 48, 174–175, 177–178. Finally, Dr. Mowry testifies that the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination, and he provides supporting analysis and evidence. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 68–72; see also Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 38–39. We credit this testimony from Dr. Mowry because it draws reasonable inferences and is supported by the cited evidence.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,769,598 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,769,598
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Tot Power Control, S.L.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 2, 2023 · IPR2022-01536 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because neither asserted obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–12 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the parties’ briefing and the evidence of record, we conclude the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1–12 of the ’865 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the alleged invention of the ’865 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or related field, with 2-3 years of experience in telecommunication systems and knowledge of telecommunication standards, with superior education compensating for less work experience.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 20–21. On the present record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’865 patent and asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of deciding whether to institute inter partes review, except that we do not include the qualifier “at least,” which would expand the required amount of education and experience indefinitely.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither party proposes a construction for any claim term. Petitioner contends that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of applying the prior art. Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner submits that, at this stage of the proceeding, we should adopt the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms. Prelim. Resp. 21. For purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “received (SIRrec) based on a data signal (107, 108) received from a base station (102, 103) or mobile station (104).” Ex. 1001, 8:48–50. For this limitation, which relates to closed (inner) loop power control, Petitioner relies on a combination of Laakso and TS214. Pet. 35. First, Petitioner contends that Laakso discloses closed loop power control in WCDMA. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 2:14–23, 8:28–9:8, 9:20–30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 105). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of closed loop power control standards, such as TS214, which require estimating SIR based on a data signal received from a base station or mobile station. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 12–15 (§ 5.1.2.2), 49 (Annex B.2); Ex. 1003 ¶ 105). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Laakso’s outer loop power control success. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 105); id. at 29–33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–101) (addressing motivation to combine Laakso and TS214).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,532,865
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00141 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Juniper failed to show claims 1–7 and 9–17 unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground because the combinations did not teach adding a co-processor without any communication with the controller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Petition, Juniper argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would’ve had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one or more years of experience in the design and development of parallel or distributed processing systems.” Pet. 11. Juniper further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art could, alternatively, “have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and less design and development experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60, 61). In its Patent Owner Response, Swarm appears to agree with Juniper because it repeats verbatim the same assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art offered by Juniper in its Petition. Compare PO Resp. 11, with Pet. 11. Accordingly, based on the fully developed trial record, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 10. That is, we adopt Juniper’s proposed formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we delete the qualifier “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound and, therefore, precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply this modified version of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In any event, even if we were to consider Juniper’s downstream theory, we do not find this belated argument persuasive. To support its downstream theory, Juniper relies on the Dr. Weissman’s testimony that “[t]echniques for avoiding [broadcast packets flooding the network] are well known in the art and may include downstream devices dropping, or filtering, broadcast packets to minimize processing load.” Ex. 1031 ¶ 36. We decline to credit this testimony for two reasons. First, apart from generically asserting that dropping or filtering broadcast packets minimizes processing load, Dr. Weissman does not attempt to explain how Leong’s surveying unit would be considered a “downstream device” from a newly added co-processor, much less why Leong’s surveying unit would need to filter or drop a broadcast packet sent by the newly added co-processor. Second, Dr. Weissman does not cite to any underlying evidence to support his testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 32

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

    “In any event, we need not construe any of the sixteen claim terms identified by Swarm in its Patent Owner Response because, when evaluating the merits of Juniper’s Petition in light of the arguments and evidence presented by Swarm during trial, the scope and meaning of the sixteen claim terms are not in controversy. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach those particular issues for purposes of deciding whether Juniper has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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))). In our obviousness evaluation below, we address the scope and meaning of the claim term “communication,” as this term pertains to the combined teachings of Leong and AppleTalkBook contested by the parties. More specifically, we address below whether Juniper’s proposed combination of Leong and AppleTalkBook teaches or suggests adding a coprocesser “on a plug-and-play basis without any communication with the controller,” as recited in each of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 of the ’275 patent.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We begin our analysis with the plain language of independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Each of these independent claims explicitly requires adding a co-processor “without any communication with the controller.” Ex. 1001, 14:40–44, 15:30–34, 16:30–34 (emphasis added). As we explained in the Final Written Decision in IPR2021-01445, the use of the word “any” precludes both communication with a response and communication without a response. IPR2021-01445, Paper 62 at 25. Turning to the disclosure in the specification of the ’275 patent cited by Juniper, we do not agree that those disclosures support limiting “communication” to only two-way messaging. The relevant passage in the specification states the following: Each cell 12 [is] configured to perform one or a plurality of specialized tasks, as illustrated in the following sequence of events. During a poll phase each cell periodically sends an agent to the task pool until a matching task is found. To facilitate this matching, both the cell and the task pool may be equipped with a transceiver. In the case of the task pool, the transceiver maybe [sic] located in the task pool itself or in the switching fabric to which the task pool is connected. When a task match is found within a task pool, the task pool transmits an acknowledgement to the cell. The next step is the “communication channel” phase. During the communication channel phase, the cell receives the task and begins to execute the task. In one implementation, once the first task is completed, the communication channel is maintained so that the solidar[it]y cell can fetch another task without having to repeat the “poll” and “acknowledge” phase. Ex. 1001, 6:33–48 (emphases added). We fail to see how each cell 12 transmitting an acknowledgement message during the “poll phase” or each cell 12 receiving a task during the “communication channel” phase implicates adding a co-processor “on a plug-and-play basis,” as required by each of independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Regardless, we do not view the cited disclosure in the specification as limiting the “communication” required by these independent claims to only two-way messaging. Instead, we view the cited disclosure as merely examples of how each cell 12 may communicate with the task pool. The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit “has repeatedly ‘cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.’” Williamson v. CitrixOnline, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Stated differently, these two examples of transmitting an acknowledgment message and receiving a task in the specification, by themselves, are not enough to prevent a broad interpretation of “communication” that includes, among other things, one-way messaging that does not require a response.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,592,275 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,592,275
• Global Health Solutions LLC v. Marc SelnerOther
  PTAB · Mar 30, 2023 · DER2017-00031 · APJ Jameson Lee · DER · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove that any of Respondent’s claims 24–36 was derived from Petitioner’s inventor because Respondent proved earlier conception of the disclosed subject matter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Conclusion As explained above, Petitioner’s proven time of conception and communication of the subject matter of “the invention disclosed to the respondent” is “February 14, 2014 4:04:17 PM EST.” Respondent’s proven time of conception of the subject matter of “the invention disclosed to the respondent” is “Feb 14, 2014 12:55 pm.” If Respondent’s time is Eastern Standard Time, then Respondent’s conception precedes Petitioner’s conception and communication by 3 hours and 9 minutes. If Respondent’s time is Pacific Standard Time, it precedes Petitioner’s conception and communication by 9 minutes. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Bradley Burnam conceived of “the invention disclosed to the respondent” prior to Marc Selner’s conception of that same subject matter, and Petitioner has not shown that Bradley Burnam communicated “the invention disclosed to the respondent” to Marc Selner prior to Marc Selner’s conception of the same subject matter. As a result, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any one of claims 24–36 of Respondent’s Application 15/549,111 is derived from Bradley Burnam. J.” slip op. at 51

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “We need not decide Respondent’s Motion to Exclude because, even considering all of the evidence Respondent seeks to exclude, Petitioner still does not prevail. Further, Respondent’s reasons for excluding Exhibit 1107 do not address admissibility, but rather implicate the proper weight to give to Marc Selner’s cross-examination testimony. See, e.g, Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00053, Paper 66 at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (Final Written Decision) (“[T]he Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal . . . is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to the evidence presented.”). Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 52

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “testimony. There also is no indication that Brad Meeuwsen possessed or considered all of the evidence that is now before us, in particular Exhibits 2067, 2067A, and 2041. Further, inventorship is a legal question. Univ. of Colorado Found. Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 342 F.3d 1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although Brad Meeuwsen as a fact witness may testify to what he heard or received from Bradley Burnam or Marc Selner, and such testimony would be probative, any testimony from Brad Meeuwsen with regard to the ultimate conclusion of inventorship carries no weight.” slip op. at 44

  None
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2021-01445 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground because the proposed combinations did not teach adding a co-processor without communication with the controller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Both Petitioner and Patent Owner argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one or more years of experience in the design and development of parallel or distributed processing systems.” Pet. 11; see also PO Resp. 7. The parties alternatively argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and less design and development experience.” Pet. 11 (citing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62– 67); see also PO Resp. 7. We adopt the parties’ proposed formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner states that “[f]or the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes all terms as having their ordinary and customary meanings.” Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim 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

  • ExcludeDenied

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)). Specifically, we stated that “[p]rovided that Patent Owner timely objects to the admissibility of Petitioner’s evidence in accordance with our regulations, we will address such objection at the procedurally appropriate time.” Id. Despite our reminding the parties of the proper procedure for challenging the admissibility of evidence, Patent Owner elected not to do so. Specifically, Patent Owner did not file a timely objection, thereby giving Petitioner an opportunity to supply supplemental evidence to cure the objection. See Pet. Reply 28. Accordingly, Patent Owner forfeited its right to object to evidence, such as AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony, and, as a result, forfeited its request that we exclude the evidence. Instead of following our rules and filing a timely objection, Patent Owner argues in the Response, citing the Federal Rules of Evidence, that we should give limited weight to AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony due to a lack of authenticity. See PO Resp. 8–15. But this is no more than a disguised motion to exclude evidence. Under these circumstances where Patent Owner’s argument is premised on the Federal Rules of Evidence, we see no meaningful difference between excluding the evidence and giving it little weight. Because Petitioner did not file a timely objection to the evidence, we deny Patent Owner’s request to give AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony limited weight.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We have reviewed the specific examples cited in Patent Owner’s Response. Even if the specific examples cited by Patent Owner were valid complaints, none of them, either alone or in combination, arise to such a level that we would discount the entirety of Dr. Weissman’s testimony. That does not mean that we found all of the testimony in this proceeding, whether provided by Dr. Weissman or Dr. Nelson, credible. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration and provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. In our obviousness analysis below, we specially identify the relevant testimony provided by the parties’ declarants that we find to be credible and not credible.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,852,004 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,852,004
• Forescout Technologies, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2023 · IPR2021-01329 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Mahaffey; the other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal on the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We find that the specification, therefore, supports Patent Owner’s argument that the term “web content filtering” differs from “web filtering”” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “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) (requiring IPR petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)) (emphasis added). This burden does not shift to Patent Owner, except in limited circumstances not present here. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in an IPR). By not providing a claim construction for a key term, “web content filtering,” Petitioner failed to live up to its obligation to provide an understandable explanation of the element-by-element specifics of the unpatentability challenges, including the particular portions of prior art supporting those challenges. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(3)– (4); Harmonic Inc., 815 F.3d at 1363–64; Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intel. Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also MModal LLC v. Nuance Communicatons, Inc., 846 Fed. Appx. 900, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded by these belated arguments, as they are based entirely on testimony by Dr. Cole as to what a person of ordinary skill “would understand” that is unsupported by any citations to Syvanne or other evidence of record. Such unsupported opinions are not entitled to any weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (November 2019)8 (“The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. . . . However, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data.”); Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). “[E]xpert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications. In other words, 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.” Consolidated Practice Guide at 36.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,894,034 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,894,034
• Apple Inc. v. Mozido, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2022-01150 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–21 and all petition grounds; claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, 20, and 21 met the institution threshold under § 103 over Easterly and Luz.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For all of the foregoing reasons and based on the record before us, we determine there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Easterly and Luz. We, however, determine that there is not a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Easterly and Luz. In any event, because Petitioner has satisfied the threshold for institution as to at least one claim, we institute inter partes review on all claims and all grounds raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims of the ’785 Patent is unpatentable. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’785 Patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 32

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

    “For the purposes of institution and based on Petitioner’s citations to Easterly, Luz, and Dr. Houh’s testimony (Ex. 1003), we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a total payment amount that is to be paid in the embedded payment information of Easterly’s barcode. See Pet. 21–25; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that the combination is an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50). Petitioner also asserts that the combination is explicitly suggested because “Easterly’s barcode ‘contains all of the data required to authenticate, authorize, clear, and settle a transaction’” and “‘incorporate[s] information sufficient to identify the parties to a transaction and all other ¶¶ 18, 20) (emphasis omitted), 22 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 18) (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “because Easterly notes that price is pertinent to the transaction, and that the barcode includes all the data required to process the transaction, or relevant to the transaction, it would have been obvious for the barcode to include the total price.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that transaction information such as the items subject to the transaction would be important and thus obvious to include within the barcode that is used at point-of-sale terminals.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner further contends that Luz provides an explicit example of putting information regarding a product or a service, a cost of the product or the service, a tax amount, and a total price; purchase payment information, merchant information, purchaser information, in a barcode. See Pet. 22 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 40, claim 6; citing Ex. 1006, claim 12; Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). According to Petitioner, [g]iven Easterly’s suggestion that the barcode includes the total price and items subject to a transaction, along with Luz’s explicit teaching of a barcode including such information, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious for Easterly’s barcode to include price and items of the transaction. Including such information as the total price would have yielded the predictable result of having the barcode include data that is relevant to the transaction.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art in August of 2012 would have had a working knowledge of the software arts that are pertinent to the ’785 patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of software programming. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner offers essentially the same definition of the level of skill in the art as Petitioner, asserting that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the ’785 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in software development involving network-based monetary transaction systems. . . . Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. . . . Appropriate experience could substitute for education. Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 35). For the purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’785 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art, and does not materially differ from Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner contends that there is no disclosure in Easterly that a debit network is selected based on location. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 69), 19 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 82), 21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 95). Patent Owner asserts that Easterly discloses in paragraph 24 “that the customer’s the customer, but there is no disclosure that location plays any role at all in selecting a debit network.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 70). According to Patent Owner, “[e]ven if Easterly discloses that different merchants can have different debit network preferences, there is no disclosure that such a preference is based on the location where the payment is initiated, and certainly no disclosure that any selection is based on location.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 70). We agree with Patent Owner that Easterly does not teach or suggest selecting a debit network based on a merchant’s location or otherwise based on a location where a payment is initiated. See Prelim. Resp. 16. On this record, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that Easterly teaches or suggests selecting a debit network based on a location at which the payment is initiated based on Easterly’s disclosure of considering merchant’s preferences in selecting a debit network, and due to the fact that different merchants may be located in different locations. For example, Petitioner does not direct us to, nor can we find, a disclosure in Easterly that a merchant’s preferences will reflect a preference based on the location of the merchant. Accordingly, for purposes of institution and based on the record before us, Petitioner does not establish sufficiently that the subject matter of dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 would have been obvious over the combination of Easterly and Luz.” slip op. at 27

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,189,785
• Microsoft Corporation v. Throughputer, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00758 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–23 because Sandstrom-1 was not prior art in light of the patent’s priority date, so Petitioner did not meet the institution threshold.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’242 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “Office was satisfied that the ’731 application, which had issued as the ’953 patent, properly claimed priority to the preceding applications in the 2012 line, and that all intermediate applications also included proper priority claims. It thus follows that, absent any defects in the priority claims of the subsequent applications, including the application that issued as the ’242 patent, the remedial steps taken by the applicant and approved by the Office during prosecution and post-issuance of the ’953 patent also render proper the priority claims of the subsequent applications. Petitioner has not persuasively pointed us to any additional defects not addressed previously by the Office in the priority chain of the ’242 patent in the 2012 line. Nor has Petitioner identified legal authority for the Board to revisit the January 2021 Decision’s finding that the priority claims of the ’731 application met the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria. See Ex. 1008, 4 (“[T]he reference as set forth in the [second corrected ADS] filed March 19, 2018 complies with 35 U.S.C. §§ 120 and 119(e) and 37 [C.F.R.] §§ 1.78(d)(2) and 1.78(a)(3).”).” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “For these reasons, Petitioner has not persuaded us that there is a break in the priority chain of the ’242 patent in the 2012 line. As such, we find that the ’242 patent is entitled to a priority date at least as early as June 8, 2012. See Ex. 1001, code (60). Accordingly, we determine that Sandstrom-1 does not qualify prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b) because Sandstrom-1’s publication date of May 29, 2014, is after the June 8, 2012, priority date from the 2012 line.6 Ex. 1001, code (60); Ex. 1004, code (43).” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “in the priority chain of the ’242 patent in the 2012 line. As such, we find that the ’242 patent is entitled to a priority date at least as early as June 8, 2012. See Ex. 1001, code (60). Accordingly, we determine that Sandstrom-1 does not qualify prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b) because Sandstrom-1’s publication date of May 29, 2014, is after the June 8, 2012, priority date from the 2012 line.6 Ex. 1001, code (60); Ex. 1004, code (43).” slip op. at 22

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,430,242
• ADT LLC v. Vivint, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2022 · IPR2022-00634 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because ADT did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, with grounds lacking particularity and adequate motivation to combine.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “§ 42.4(a), we may not institute an IPR unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Taking into account Vivint’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that ADT would prevail in challenging any one of claims 1, 2, 9–11, 26, 31, and 33–35 of the ’552 patent as unpatentable. We, therefore, deny ADT’s Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “the combination of Ulrich and Mathias. See Pet. 10–25. Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that ADT has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this asserted obviousness ground with respect to at least one of claims 1, 2, and 9–11. Specifically, ADT has failed to articulate, with reasonable clarity, (1) which teachings of each prior art reference it relies on to show that the combination of Ulrich and Mathias accounts for all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 9–11 and (2) why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “and Mathias, the reasoning provided is generic and conclusory, and does not clarify sufficiently which teachings from each reference it combines to account for all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 9–11. In Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, the Federal Circuit explained that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, a rationale to combine must not rely on hindsight, but must “imply a motivation to pick out those two references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention.” Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “fares no better. The Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]onclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.” TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Federal Circuit has found that, when “[t]he expert failed to explain how specific references could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific references would yield a predictable result, or how any specific combination would operate or read on the asserted claims,” that the “expert’s testimony on obviousness was essentially a conclusory statement.” ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012); KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418 (“A patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious by merely demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”); Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Lab’ys, 512 F.3d 1363, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (finding that “vague testimony would not have been helpful to a lay jury in avoiding the pitfalls of hindsight that belie a determination of obviousness”). Dr. Rhyne’s declaration testimony sets forth a generic and conclusory statement without explaining how the teachings of Ulrich and Mathias could be combined, which combination of elements in Ulrich and Mathias would yield the “expected benefits,” or how any specific combination would operate or read on the limitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, Dr. Rhyne’s supporting testimony also is deficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”)” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,392,552
• ADT LLC v. Vivint, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2022 · IPR2022-00642 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because ADT did not clearly map the references to the challenged claims or adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine them.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “§ 42.4(a), we may not institute an IPR unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Taking into account Vivint’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that ADT would prevail in challenging any one of claims 1, 2, 10–14, and 25–27 of the ’769 patent as unpatentable. We, therefore, deny ADT’s Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “U.S.C. § 311(a), that identifies the challenged claims and the grounds for challenge with particularity, [35 U.S.C.] § 312(a)(3).” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1351 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (specifying necessary elements of a petition). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an IPR can be instituted only if there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Even when a petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood as to at least one claim, however, institution of an IPR remains discretionary. SAS Inst., 138 S. Ct. at 1351 (“§ 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review”); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Ulrich and Mathias, the reasoning provided is generic and does not clarify sufficiently which teachings from each reference it combines to account for all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 10–14. In Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, the Federal Circuit explained that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, a rationale to combine must not rely on hindsight, but must “imply a motivation to pick out those two references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention.” Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “that “[s]imilarity in subject matter is insufficient,” by itself, “to establish that a [person having ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to combine references.” Prelim. Resp. 23–24 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC, 662 F. App’x 981, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished); Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 701 F. App’x 971, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished); Salpeter v. ARP Wave, LLC, IPR2019-01384, Paper 12 at 17 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2020)). Similar to Personal Web Technologies, ADT’s “reasoning seems to say no more than that a skilled artisan, once presented with the two references, would have understood that they could be combined.” Personal Web Techs., 848 F.3d at 993; see Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 262–63 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding expert testimony conclusory and improperly guided by hindsight based on use of the phrases: “would naturally have included”; “would be logical”; and “could be, and most logically would be”)). ADT neither explains why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ulrich and Mathias—as we understand ADT to be arguing—nor does it explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify either Ulrich or Mathias such that either reference may be asserted in a single-reference obviousness ground. In addition, because Dr. Rhyne’s declaration testimony mirrors the arguments presented by ADT, his supporting testimony fares no better. Compare Pet. 13, with Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 64, 65.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,700,769

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.