- Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Brixham Solutions, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 27, 2015 · IPR2014-00425 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–11, 13–15, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over either Hofmeister, RFC 3386, and Owens or Halabi, RFC 3386, and Owens.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“In reply, Petitioner cites KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), noting, “KSR set forth a number of ‘Exemplary Rationales’ that support an obviousness finding . . . . Many of these rationales apply here and support the obviousness of the claims.” Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner describes in detail why it would have been obvious to combine Hofmeister with RFC 3386 and Owens, under several rationales set forth in KSR: combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; using known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way; applying known techniques to known methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and using teachings, suggestions, or motivations in the prior art to modify or combine references to arrive at the claimed invention. Pet. Reply 6–10. As Petitioner contends, it would have been a natural fit and a predictable step for a [person having ordinary skill in the art] to use the Setup/Holding priority described in Hofmeister to make preemption decisions during network failure . . . to take advantage of well-known protection mechanisms, such as those in RFC 3386/Owens. Pet. Reply 10–11. We determine that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning for combining Hofmeister, RFC 3386, and Owens, supported by rational underpinnings, that are reasonable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 8–11, 13–15, and 17 are obvious in view of Hofmeister, RFC 3386, and Owens.” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Opp. to Mot. to Excl. 6–7. While we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s motion is procedurally defective for the reasons argued by Petitioner, for purposes of this decision we also review Patent Owner’s substantive arguments, which we also determine to be lacking in merit. Patent Owner argues that Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1027 should be excluded due to the “general evasiveness” of Dr. Lavian and “interference of counsel.” Mot. to Exclude 1. Petitioner contends that Dr. Lavian’s responses were not evasive but were proper, and Petitioner’s objections to the “content” and “form” also were proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8). Opp. 8–13. Patent Owner responds that it “seeks to exclude the entirety of Dr. Lavian’s declaration . . . because of the behavior of the witness and his counsel at the deposition.” PO Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Lavian’s responses were not “evasive.” For example, Patent Owner’s argument directs us to a specific portion of the deposition where Dr. Lavian was asked, “did you add that element, 584b?” Mot. to Exclude 2 (quoting Ex. 2003, 34:18). We agree with Petitioner that this “only concrete example of this supposed ‘evasiveness’ identified” by Patent Owner concerns not the ’652 patent being challenged herein, but rather, the patent at issue in IPR2014-00431. Opp. 11. Although Patent Owner states that “this type of evasiveness pervaded the entirety of the deposition,” (Mot. to Excl. 3), based on our review of Ex. 2003, we are persuaded that Dr. Lavian responded to Patent Owner’s questions to the best of his ability and was not “evasive.” We further agree with Petitioner that its deposition objections were proper. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8)(“Any objection to the content, form, or manner of taking the deposition, including the qualifications of the officer, is waived unless made on the record during the deposition and preserved in a timely filed motion to exclude.”). Based on our review of Ex. 2003, Petitioner’s objections were directed to the content, form, or manner of taking the deposition, and, therefore, were proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8). We are also not persuaded that the alleged behavior of opposing counsel, alone or “in combination with the other occurrences at the deposition” (Mot. to Exclude 4), is a sufficient basis to exclude Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1027. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion. As noted in our Decision to Institute, however, we reiterate that we have not considered any of Petitioner’s arguments made solely by virtue of incorporation by reference from either of the Lavian declarations. See supra n.1; Dec. to Inst., 11–12 n.1.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Bachelor’s in computer science, electrical engineering, or the equivalent; and at least 7 years of professional experience in network communications and Internet protocols, or an advanced degree and 4 years’ experience.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill, and Petitioner has not provided a sufficient explanation as to how its specific proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill (for example, the importance of the inclusion of “at least”) affects the analysis in this case. Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references and we determine that no express statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art is required.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner further contends there would have been no motivation to combine Hofmeister with RFC 3386 and Owens. PO Resp. 5–6. Patent Owner’s support for its arguments is the Declaration of Dr. George N. Rouskas, to which we accord little weight because his testimony is conclusory and unsupported by evidentiary explanations. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). At the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel stated that “we heard [Petitioner’s] presentation about all this prior art out there that talks about preempting network traffic, and it’s legion. . . . And yes, it’s true, again, as with the other references, this is a concept that people would have known reading all of these references, prioritizing, working traffic under normal operating conditions.” Tr. 18:1–2, 28:11–14. Thus, Patent Owner concedes the existence of references disclosing the recited limitations in the challenged claims, but nevertheless argues that there is not any motivation to combine such references.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,940,652 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,940,652 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Brixham Solutions Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 27, 2015 · IPR2014-00431 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Bell, Sierra-1, Sierra-2, and Sierra-3.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Transfer Mode (“ATM”), and Internet Protocol (“IP”) based services.” Ex. 1001, 5:54–58. Also, the ’895 patent describes that “[e]fficiency is greatly increased when each processing engine supports all protocols used in switch 90 at the OSI model layers supported by the processing engines.” Id. at 14:50–52. The ’895 patent further describes an embodiment that includes the link interfaces and processing engines coupled to a control bus, where the control bus “is a 100 Base- T Ethernet communications link . . . [that] employs the 100 Base-T Ethernet protocols for carrying and formatting data,” and in another embodiment the control bus “is a star-like switched Ethernet network.” Id. at 17:23–38. We agree with Petitioner’s construction of this limitation, to mean “two or more of ‘Ethernet, ATM, Frame Relay’ [that] constitute a first and second protocol within a layer,” is consistent with the specification that describes the network switch to provide “Frame Relay, Gigabit Ethernet, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (‘ATM’), and Internet Protocol (‘IP’) based services.” Pet. 25; Ex. 1001, 5:54–58. This construction is also consistent with the construction proffered by Patent Owner, requiring that “a processing engine must be capable of processing data according to at least two of the afore-referenced protocols.” PO Resp. 2. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that, under the broadest reasonable construction, the “multiprotocol” limitation means “two or more of ‘Ethernet, ATM, Frame Relay’ that constitute a first and second protocol within a layer” and we further agree with Patent Owner that a “processing engine” is capable of processing data according to at least two of the afore-referenced protocols.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“except for the limitation that the switch is configured to “map data from multiple link interfaces in said plurality of link interfaces to a first processing engine in said plurality of processing engines.” Pet. 28. Petitioner further contends that if Bell does not explicitly or inherently disclose the switch is configured to “map data from multiple link interfaces in said plurality of link interfaces to a first processing engine in said plurality of processing engines,” then Sierra-1, Sierra-2, and Sierra-3 disclose this limitation. Pet. 29–30. Petitioner specifically argues that Sierra-1 discloses flexible data transmissions that allows for time slots of data to be mapped from any port card to any forwarding card and Sierra-2 discloses a “‘connection map’ that is used to map data from the link interfaces to the processing engines.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1006, 14, Fig. 2; Ex. 1005, 29–30). Sierra-1 further discloses multicast is supported as an output and can sample data from any input. Ex. 1006, 14, Fig. 2. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to combine Sierra-1, Sierra-2, and Sierra-3 with the Bell architecture, because Bell specifically mentions the use of Sierra’s cross-connection component. Pet. 30–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 261); Ex. 1004, 51:56–65.” slip op. at 12
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Although we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s motion is procedurally defective for the reasons argued by Petitioner (see Opp. 4–6), we also agree with Petitioner that Dr. Lavian’s responses were not “evasive” and highlight this argument for emphasis. For example, Patent Owner’s argument directs us to specific portion of the deposition where Dr. Lavian was asked “did you add that element, 548b?” Supp. Mot. to Exclude 2 (quoting Ex. 2002, 34:18). We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Lavian answered this question to the best of Dr. Lavian’s ability. Opp. 13 (citing Ex. 2002, 34:20–35:2). Furthermore, Patent Owner was able to rephrase the same question and elicit an additional response that Patent Owner did not determine to be “evasive.” See Ex. 2002, 36:6–20. Although Patent Owner directs us to an additional example where Dr. Lavian was allegedly “evasive” and generally concludes that “this type of evasiveness pervaded the entirety of the deposition,” based on our review of Ex. 2002, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that Dr. Lavian did not respond to the questions to the best of his ability. We further agree with Petitioner that Petitioner’s objections were proper. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8) (“Any objection to the content, form, or manner of taking the deposition, including the qualifications of the offier, is waived unless made on the record during the deposition and preserved in a timely filed motion to exclude.”). Based on our review of Ex. 2002, Petitioner’s objections were directed to the content, form, or manner of taking the deposition, and, therefore, were proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8). We are also not persuaded that the behavior of opposing counsel, alone or “in combination with the occurences at the deposition” (Supp. Mot. to Exclude 4) is a sufficient basis to exclude Exhibit 1003 or Exhibit 1020. Such a remedy is incongruous and disproportional to any alleged harm suffered by Patent Owner during deposition. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1003 and Exhibit 1020 is denied.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,535,895 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,535,895 - Sure-Fire Electrical Corporation v. Yongjiang Yin And Shenzhen El Lighting Co. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 1, 2015 · IPR2014-01448 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted for claims 1 and 7 under § 103 over He and Korodi, and denied for the He and Currie ground.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“Therefore, we conclude that we did not abuse our discretion in declining to institute an inter partes review based the combination of He and Currie. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review based on this ground. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, on rehearing, based on our review of the record before us, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the combination of He and Korodi. Therefore, we modify our Decision to institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and 7 for obviousness over He and Korodi. We determine, however, that we did not abuse our discretion in declining to institute review on the asserted ground based on He and Currie, and rehearing is denied as to that ground. At this stage in the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, including the claim construction.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“a reasonable likelihood that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of He and Korodi. Specifically, we determine, based on the current record, Petitioner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings. “‘[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We credit Dr. Horenstein’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious simply to replace the aluminum core wire in He with a power cord as taught by Korodi. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 99, 102. We additionally are persuaded, on the record before us, that the combination of He and Korodi unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16. To be nonobvious, an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. Indeed, we credit Dr. Horenstein’s testimony that replacing the aluminum core wire in He for the power cord in Korodi would have been a merger of familiar elements according to their established functions, known methods, and predictable results. Ex. 1008 ¶ 103.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundOther
“Based on the record before us, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of He and Korodi. Specifically, we determine, based on the current record, Petitioner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings. “‘[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We credit Dr. Horenstein’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious simply to replace the aluminum core wire in He with a power cord as taught by Korodi. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 99, 102. We additionally are persuaded, on the record before us, that the combination of He and Korodi unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16. To be nonobvious, an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. Indeed, we credit Dr. Horenstein’s testimony that replacing the aluminum core wire in He for the power cord in Korodi would have been a merger of familiar elements according to their established functions, known methods, and predictable results. Ex. 1008 ¶ 103. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are persuaded the combination of He and Korodi is a proper combination.” slip op. at 10
- Burden
“With regard to the asserted ground of unpatentability of claims 1 and 7 for obviousness over He and Currie, Petitioner does not explain adequately the relative strengths or weaknesses of this ground and the grounds on which we have instituted. See Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Constellation Tech. LLC, Case IPR2014-01180, slip op. at 29–30 (PTAB Feb. 8, 2015) (Paper 8). The Currie reference has a filing date of September 24, 2004 and an issuance date of October 17, 2006. Thus, the Currie reference would not be prior art if Patent Owner were successful in establishing a conception date “at least as early as April 2004” and diligence from conception to reduction to practice. See Prelim. Resp. 11. Accordingly, the arguments presented in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing do not apply to the combination of He and Currie. Therefore, we conclude that we did not abuse our discretion in declining to institute an inter partes review based the combination of He and Currie. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review based on this ground.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,671,279 - PTAB · May 12, 2015 · IPR2014-00242 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1–3, 5, and 6 and denied substitute claims 7–11 because the Patent Owner failed to establish written-description support for claim 10 and patentability over prior art for claims 7–9 and 11.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“Unlike examination, entry of the proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review is not automatic. As the moving party, Patent Owner must establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner bears the burden to show, inter alia, that a reasonable number of substitute claims is proposed, there is no broadening of scope, the proposed claims are supported adequately by the written description of the application as filed originally, and the proposed claims are patentable over the prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121; Idle Free Sys. Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) (“Idle Free”). We address each of these requirements in turn.” slip op. at 10
- 112 supportDenied
“its Motion to Amend to set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.” The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The purpose of the written description requirement is to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” slip op. at 12
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“2. No Broadening of Scope Proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes claim 7 as a substitute for claim 1, claim 8 as a substitute for claim 2, claim 9 as a substitute for claim 3, claim 10 as a substitute for claim 5, and claim 11 as a substitute for claim 6. Mot. 1–5. Each claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding challenged claim for which it is a substitute, and adds additional limitations. Id. No limitations from the challenged claims were deleted in the proposed substitute claims. Patent Owner asserts that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the ’047 patent. See Mot. 1. Petitioner does not dispute this assertion (“patent owner’s proposed substitute claims . . . add ancillary features”). Opp. 1. We are persuaded that each of the proposed substitute claims does not enlarge the scope of each of the challenged patent claims it intends to replace.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Decision to Institute, we determined that no explicit construction was necessary for any of the claim terms beyond their ordinary and customary meanings. Dec. to Inst. 8–9. Neither party has challenged that determination, and based on the record adduced during trial, we see no reason to provide an express construction for any term. For the proposed substitute claims, Patent Owner states that: Like the terms in the original claims, all of [the newly added claim terms in the proposed substitute claims] are simple [claim terms] whose ordinary meaning applies and for which no construction is required, with the possible exception of “member” and “group.” As explained in the specification (Ex. 1) at 3:2–4, “The present invention comprises a method . . . for allowing on-line communications with members of a group of recipients for whom the invention has been implemented.” In the context of proposed independent claim [7], the claimed invention requires that “said first computer system storing information about said plurality of members in a database.” Thus, in the context of the proposed amended claims[,] a “group” is a group of a plurality of members for whom the first computer system has stored information in a database. Mot. 7. Petitioner does not propose alternative constructions for the claim terms “member” or “group.” We cannot discern how the constructions proffered by Patent Owner add any clarity to the terms “member” and “group,” which are simple and commonly understood terms. We decline to provide an express construction for either “member” or “group.”” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites AlicePatents in suitUS 8,499,047
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.