- Next Step Group, Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00525 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving the challenged design claim unpatentable on any of its ten asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted unless the 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); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). After considering the Parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the one claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“December 15, 2015”). The date that a product was listed as first available on a website, however, is not sufficient evidence that the content of the listing, including the photographs depicted therein, were published at that time. See Ex parte Basulto, Appeal 2020-00129, 2021 WL 1264902, at *2 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2021) (stating “the date [a] product was listed on Amazon.com is not compelling evidence that the content of [the] listing itself as shown in the document, and the photographs relied on within it were published at that time”). Selling products online is dynamic. Id. Product listings may be updated and photographs of the products may change. Id. While a statement on a commercial website as to when a product was “first available” might constitute evidence as to when the product was first offered for sale, such a statement is not sufficient evidence that the listing itself, or any photograph depicted therein, has not changed over time. See Ex parte Zhang, Appeal 2021-000087, 2021 WL 633718 at *3 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2021) (stating “while the [webpage] date indicates that the product information was last updated on [date], there is no additional evidence to corroborate that the picture was publicly accessible on that date”). We have also reviewed the customer reviews that Petitioner asserts show “the listing were [sic] public, printed publications.” Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1009, 6; Ex. 1015 ¶ 17–18. None of the reviews dated prior to the critical date of November 8, 2019, however, contain any images of the UGG Neumel Boot. See Ex. 1009, 6). Thus, Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence that any of the images on pages 1–9 of Exhibit 1009 were available on the website prior to the critical date.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Here, the pull-tab does serve a useful purpose as it can be used to pull the footwear onto the foot. Based on the evidence presented, however, we disagree with Petitioner that the pull tab is primarily functional and should be removed entirely from the construction of the claimed design. Petitioner presents a number of arguments to support its position that the pull tab is functional, not ornamental. Petitioner asserts that the pull tab is “obviously not ornamentation but instead is a functional element that is used to pull the footwear on to the foot, an important function and part of the Patent Owner’s marketing message.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 64–67; possible, the type of pull tab shown in the ’161 patent “is the kind that is generally used in shorter shaft, lower ankle height footwear to make it easier to pull up and put the boot on the foot.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1009, the UGG Neumel Boot). Petitioner further asserts that the pull tab is “securely attached for actual use, countering that it is ornamental” and that “[a]ny other pull tab (e.g., not at the top of the footwear as in the UGG Neumel Boot) would not be as efficient and hence not an acceptable alternative.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 64–67; Ex. 1013, 25–27). We are not persuaded by these arguments. The “marketing material” relied on by Petition, as discussed by Mr. Holden, merely states that Ultra Mini Ugg Boots “have a slightly lower ankle to make it easier for you to slip on,” that the UGG boots are “fantastic” for those who “may struggle with pulling on other styles,” and the boots “are fantastic for those who may struggle with pulling on other styles and are looking for more comfort and durability.” See Ex. 1011 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1003). None of the marketing material cited by Petitioner even mentions a pull tab. Nor does the present record support Petitioner’s contentions that,” slip op. at 27
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. First, the images of the Emu Stinger Micro Boot that Petitioner relies upon are from pages 1–6 of Exhibit 1002, which as noted above, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown to constitute a printed publication prior art. Thus, Petitioner’s arguments are based on images in a reference that does not qualify as prior art to the claimed design. The images found on pages 8 and 9 of Exhibit 1002 are not the same images as those relied upon in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1002, 8– 9, with Pet. 35–36. Thus, for at least this reason, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the ’161 patent is anticipated by the Emu Stinger Boot. Second, even if we were to consider any of these images of the Emu Stinger Micro Boot depicted in Exhibit 1002, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because the arguments fail to adequately address differences between the claimed design and the prior art as viewed by an ordinary observer. See Door-Master Corp., 256 F.3d at 1313 (stating for anticipation to be found, the claimed design and the prior art design must be substantially the same). For example, the Figures of the ’161 patent depict (1) a stitch pattern design that includes a wavy line on the back heel of the boot (see Figs. 1–3, 5), (2) a pull tab that extends over the top part of the back of the boot and opening for insertion of the foot that appears to constitute more than 50% of the length of the boot (Figs. 2, 3, 6), and (4) a backward sloping top line. Petitioner does not address the differences between (1) the stitch pattern (2) the pull tab, or (3) the size of the opening for the foot at all in its anticipation argument. See Pet. 35–38.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00425 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. 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 the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and informed by the pre-institution record, shows “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 all challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In evaluating arguments under Section 325(d), we use a two-part framework, determining, first, “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). If either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, we then determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Id. Petitioner’s challenge over the combination of Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy counsels us not to discretionarily deny institution. Patent Owner does not dispute that Beck and Heller were not before the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 42–43; Prelim. Sur-reply 3. Although Patent Owner characterizes that as “irrelevant” (Prelim. Sur-reply 3), Petitioner asserts it relies on Beck to teach the limitation leading to allowance (Prelim. Reply 3). In fact, the Petition largely relies on Beck, or the combination of Beck and Heller, in its obviousness challenge and only relies on Lovejoy for a sliver of 11 Chapter 31 (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) relates to inter partes review. first part of Advanced Bionics is not satisfied and do not exercise our discretion to deny institution for this reason. Even if we were to reach the second part of Advanced Bionics, we agree with Petitioner the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims by not applying the combination of Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy during prosecution, as evidenced by Petitioner’s reliance on that combination in its unpatentability challenges. Prelim. Reply 3; see Pet. 69–70. Petitioner specifically points out the Office erred by overlooking Beck’s “disclosure of the limitation that allegedly was missing from the prior art and led to allowance,” i.e., “wherein the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID . . . and communicates to said wireless device . . . software related to the unique sensor ID.” Prelim. Reply 3. Patent Owner, at most, suggests Petitioner fails to demonstrate the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims because Petitioner’s combination does not show unpatentability. See Prelim. Resp. 43. However, as detailed in our analysis above, Petitioner adequately shows that the claims would have been obvious over the combination of Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d) over Petitioner’s challenge based on Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy. We need not address whether Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s challenge based on Bandy warrants discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–42.” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine the plain language and structure of the limitation does not support a construction requiring authentication using both the unique sensor ID and the unique wireless ID, as asserted by Patent Owner. The claim recites “the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID,” but Patent Owner’s construction appears to read out the phrase “associated with” and adds an unrecited requirement to the claim such that the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID and said unique wireless device ID. Ex. 1001, 19:51–52 (emphasis added). The language and structure of the limitation reads that the unique wireless ID is “associated with” the unique sensor ID. As such, the last portion of the limitation reciting “associated with said unique wireless device ID” serves to further describe the unique sensor ID, specifically, that the unique sensor ID is associated with the unique wireless device ID. 8 In Petitioner’s Reply and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply, the parties dispute the construction of this phrase. See Prelim. Reply 2; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–3. Those arguments go beyond the scope of the briefing we authorized on discretionary denial and inventorship (see Ex. 3001), so we do not consider them here. using both the unique sensor ID and a unique wireless device ID. The Specification does not use, let alone define, the terms “server” or “authentication.” See generally Ex. 1001. To the extent the Specification provides examples of access to a remote computer, those examples describe access on the basis of a sensor ID—but not a wireless device ID. In one example, a wireless device obtains software for a RFID sensor tag from “a centralized database for RFID tags or a diagnostics database that is accessed only by paying an access fee. Subsequently, the ID of the RFID sensor is matched to a given class of sensor (e.g. a glucose sensor) and the software and/or instructions for the analyses are downloaded” to the wireless device. Ex. 1001, 18:16–23 (emphasis added). Another example similarly provides access solely on the basis of a sensor ID: “a patient can . . . upload into the cell phone the necessary information to conduct any given test by matching the ID of the RFID sensor with given software and data tables stored remotely on computer 400.” Id. at 16:50–56 (emphasis added). Accordingly, for institution purposes, we construe “wherein the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID” such that the remote server’s authentication requires use of a unique sensor ID; but the remote server’s authentication does not require use of the unique wireless device ID.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we agree with Petitioner that the identified limitations—which each recite a “means” or “means for” performing a particular function—are means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). We are also preliminarily persuaded that Petitioner correctly identifies the recited functions and corresponding structure for these limitations. See Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:20–21, 2:24–28, 3:33–36, 17:18–30); see Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:4–6, 9:19–20, 9:57–65, 10:10–11) (explaining that Lovejoy is incorporated by reference into the ’307 Patent). For purposes of this Decision, we apply the constructions identified by Petitioner. These are shown in the table below:” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,969,307 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00095 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied AliveCor’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the Petterson–Nakada combinations did not teach or suggest the claimed replacement of one user interface with another.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if substantial evidence does not support a factual finding, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Reh’g Req. 8 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)). Also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) sets forth, in relevant part that: rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Our determinations regarding Nakada did not support Petitioner’s argument that Nakada’s “system is returned to the beginning state of the routine, which in the case of Petterson would be FIG. 2B.” Pet. 71; Dec. 39–40. We also stated that “the proposed combination does not address adequately Nakada’s description of powering down its display.” Id. at 40 (citing Pet. 48–50; Prelim. Resp. 25–26; Ex. 1011, Fig. 4). We, thus, determined Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that either Petterson or Nakada teaches or suggests “replacing display of the second user interface with the first user interface.” Dec. 38–41 (citing Pet. 48–50, 68–69, 70–71; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 379, 382; Ex. 1011, Fig. 4). The “totality of the combination” lacked replacing a user interface with any other user interface. Dec. 40–41 (determining “the asserted references neither individually nor combined as proposed would have, ‘in response to detecting that the first criteria are no longer met for a second period of time that is longer than the first period of time, replac[ed] display of the second user interface with the first user interface’”); Reh’g Req. 8 (arguing “the Board overlooked the totality of the combination and Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence regarding the modification of Petterson that would have been obvious . . . in view of Nakada”).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the arguments and cited evidence of the Petition, we determined that Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’533 patent. Paper 7 (“Decision” or “Dec.”). Petitioner subsequently filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Reh’g Req.”). For the reasons stated below, Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion in denying the Petition, and thus, Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,568,533 - Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 8, 2024 · IPR2023-00438 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 12–14, and 17–19 are unpatentable: Amano anticipates claims 1, 5, 7, 12, and 17, and Amano with Gorman or Flach renders the remaining claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) for the technology of the ’413 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in engineering, computer science, industrial design, biomechanics, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of experience researching, developing, designing, and/or testing fitness or physiological sensors, wearable devices, physiological or biomechanical devices, remotely-controlled systems or interfaces, network-based applications and/or equipment, or the equivalent experience or education.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Sur-reply 4–5; Ex. 1017, 73:13–22; Ex. 2013, 23:10–24:25,17 36:19–37:7. It, therefore, seems unnecessary in our view to contemplate claim constructions that substitute “takes into account” or “is adaptive to” for the actual claim language of “based on.” It is apparent from the record that has developed during trial that a core matter for resolution is whether an exertion level that is “based on” a level of a user’s physical fitness includes, at least in some fashion, a user’s physical characteristics or attributes as a part of assessing or understanding a level of a user’s physical fitness. From a general standpoint, it stands to reason that many of a person’s physical attributes, in at least some respect, do indeed provide for assessing the level of that person’s physical fitness. To be sure, we agree with Patent Owner that certain individual attributes, such as any of sex, age, height, weight, and stride length, taken alone cannot necessarily be “equated” with a user’s level of physical fitness or constitute such a level. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 3 (quoting Ex. 2012, 148:5-149:16). But, the record reasonably suggests that such attributes when considered in conjunction with one another can provide meaningful guidance or basis for assessing the level of a user’s physical fitness. For instance, Petitioner contends that “weight and height as expressed through BMI can estimate body composition” which is a “component of physical fitness.” Pet. Reply 2. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Lynch, testifies that body” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“those here including stride length and body weight, may be factored in as a part of an assessment of a person’s level of physical fitness. Although any one particular physical characteristic of a person may not be indicative of the person’s physical fitness, Amano provides that the interrelationship of at least a person’s stride length, initial pitch, and weight are associated with one another so as to establish that particular person’s exercise intensity. Amano also recognizes that there is a relationship between a person’s exercise intensity and heartbeat rate. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, Fig. 4, 4:6–7 (FIG. 4 is a diagram showing the relationship between exercise intensity and heartbeat rate.”). Patent Owner agrees that heart rate may factor into determining a person’s level of physical fitness. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 4 (“The specification explains that ‘heart rate’ and ‘breathing’ can be used to determine a user’s physical fitness.”). Amano’s teachings in employing a person’s particular physical characteristics, e.g., stride length and body weight, alongside a person’s pitch, i.e., steps per minute, in the process of determining exercise intensity, which is related to heartbeat rate, in our view, reasonably form a basis for assessment of a level of a person’s physical fitness. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 12:15–20.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“teach what Petitioner contends they teach. Rather, the core dispute that emerges between the parties is whether those teachings that are applied to wireless devices would also be applicable to wired devices. At the outset, we note that neither the Specification nor the claims of the ’413 patent provides restriction as to any type of communication approach, i.e., wireless or wired communication, or that there is some type of fundamental distinction between those communication approaches that precludes combining aspects of one with the other. Indeed, as Petitioner notes, the ’413 patent recognizes that wireless interfaces are “alternative[s]” for wired interfaces. Pet. Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:27–32). And, Petitioner points out that the relevant dependent claims are not limited to wireless communication. Id. Patent Owner’s assertion that wired communication versus wireless communication imposes some type of insurmountable obstacle to one of ordinary skill in the art in combining the teachings of the references is not adequately, if at all, tethered to the record at hand. Indeed, Amano, itself, presents iterations of its device that employ both wired technology (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, Figs. 5, 16, 30, 40) and also wireless technology (see, e.g., id. at Fig. 44). Patent Owner argues that implementing aspects of Gorman and Flach’s wireless devices onto Amano’s wired device “would have required complete redesigns and new components.” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶77–78, 81–82) Given the recognition in the art, such as Amano, that a workout device may include either wired or wireless components, it is difficult to reach the conclusion that “complete redesign” would be necessary. Nevertheless, that there may be some design considerations, or even challenges, that a skilled artisan may face in combining those two types of communication technology, does not end the obviousness inquiry. The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art has significant engineering and design experience in connection with wearable workout devices. See Pet. 18, PO Resp. 16. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Bergeron adequately explains why any design challenges in combining aspects a wired workout device with a wireless workout device would have been beyond the skill or ordinarily skilled artisan, so as to preclude a determination of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 8,620,413 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,620,413 - Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 26, 2024 · IPR2023-00424 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10, 12–17, and 19 as anticipated or obvious over Acres, and claims 9 and 18 as obvious over Acres and Pyles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner indicates that “[f]or purposes of this Response, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 14. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art as reasonable and consistent with the prior 9 Person of ordinary skill in the art. art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Considering the discussion above, we conclude that the meaning of “data” previously offered by Patent Owner as “factual information, from 10 [JUDGE]: Counsel, let me borrow my colleague’s question. Maybe I’m belaboring this, but in your view, information that is sensed or collected or factual information that is sensed or collected, that’s effectively the same thing; and this case does not distinguish between factual information in that context and just information? [COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWER]: Yes. That’s correct, Your Honor. which decisions and subsequent actions can be made” finds support in the record, and also is in accord with the meaning of “data” as “information” that is offered by Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 2).11 Accordingly, we adopt the meaning of “data” that Patent Owner offered in its Preliminary Response as “factual information, from which decisions and subsequent actions can be made.” See Prelim Resp. 18. In doing so, we reiterate and restate our view from the Institution Decision that the record does not lend itself to a conclusion that such a meaning of “data” is so restrictive as to convey that any instructions, commands, or signals are “entirely devoid of content recognized as ‘factual information’ so as to be beyond the contours of what a skilled artisan would regard as ‘data.’” See Inst. Dec. 9.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Thus, Acres discloses that, based upon an exerciser’s heart rate, Bug 601 operates to send or transmit commands to treadmill 150 to control operational parameters of the treadmill, such as its speed and incline. Petitioner contends that “Acres’s Bug and its associated sensors are together a sensor device.” See, e.g., Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner does not dispute that contention. Patent Owner’s dispute arises from its position that Acres’s transmitted commands do not amount to the claimed “first set of data.” See PO Resp. 21–25; PO Sur-reply 10–14. That dispute is premised on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, which requires that the claimed “data” be only information that is sensed or collected in some other specific way by a sensor. As discussed above in our Claim Construction section (§ II.C.1), however, we do not agree that the record substantiates such a narrow meaning for the term “data.” It is difficult to conclude that a command that is generated based on a user’s heart rate that operates to control the functionality of a piece of workout equipment is not readily viewed as “factual information, from which decisions or subsequent actions can be made,” which, as discussed above, is a meaning of “data” that reasonably emerges to one of ordinary skill in the art based on record evidence.12 In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner also briefly states that Acres does not show that “decisions or subsequent actions can be made” from “data.” PO Sur-reply 12–13. It is apparent, however, that Patent Owner does not dispute that decisions or subsequent actions may be made based on the commands transmitted from Acres’s Bug. Id. at 13 (“lululemon has only established that Acres teaches that decisions or subsequent actions are made based on commands transmitted from the Bug.”). Indeed, no dispute is credible because, as noted above, Acres clearly describes the commands the Bug sends operate to control operation of workout equipment, such as increasing its speed. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. Rather, Patent Owner simply parallels its prior arguments that a deficiency arises because, in Patent 12 We again note that “factual information, from which decisions or subsequent actions can be made” was the meaning of “data” advocated by Patent Owner as a part of its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 18. Owner’s view, the commands do not encompass “data.” As discussed above, we do not agree with that contention. Patent Owner does not contend that any other feature of independent” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“agree with Patent Owner (see, e.g., PO Resp. 27–28; PO Sur-reply 14–17), but rather agree with Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. 29–31; Pet. Reply 19–21). The record does not demonstrate that there is some type of fundamental dichotomy between local data storage of activity at a piece of workout equipment and remote, central data storage of such activity that prohibits or precludes combining teachings directed to each approach. Rather, the record readily conveys that each type of data storage approach was recognized as known and viable. Even if there may have been some disadvantages with one or both approaches, the obviousness inquiry does not somehow mandate that a combination of teachings must result in something that is free of imperfection. As suggested by Petitioner, a skilled artisan readily would have recognized some benefits accrue to the local data storage approach advocated by Pyles. Even if there may have been some disadvantages to that approach, that does not nullify appreciation of the benefits that may offset such disadvantages. See, e.g., Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another”). Indeed, as argued by Petitioner, and as attested to by Dr. Houh, the record reasonably establishes that a skilled artisan would have evaluated potential benefits and detriments as part of various data storage approaches in the area of workout equipment in assessing obviousness. See, e.g., Pet. 29–31; Pet. Reply 19–21; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68–73; Ex. 1015 ¶ 31. The obviousness inquiry demands as much. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. McLean, postulates, without record citation, that some detriments may possibly arise in implementing data storage at an exercise machine, as in Pyles, in lieu of central site storage as in Acres. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 64–68. Yet, even if such less-than-desirable characteristics may result, neither Dr. McLean nor Patent Owner offers any cogent explanation as to why recognition of those characteristics undermines a determination of obviousness. In particular, Dr. McLean does not dispute that local storage would have the benefits discussed by Dr. Houh (a simplified, less expensive structure with a reduced number of components, which do not need to be connected to the internet), albeit along with the disadvantages discussed by Dr. McLean. Indeed, Dr. McLean and Patent Owner do not explain why a skilled artisan would not reasonably have evaluated any detriments alongside the potential benefits as a part of the obviousness inquiry. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). That test does not objectively fail if a skilled artisan would have recognized some disadvantages in combining the prior art teachings. See, e.g., Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”).” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,923,225 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,923,225 - Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00348 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–7, and 12 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 5–7 are anticipated by Lofi, and claims 1, 5–7, and 12 are obvious over Maeueler and Kitagawa.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’930 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Fischer (Ex. 1005 ¶ 44).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “providing first instructions to a user to perform a first athletic movement.” Ex. 1001, 26:17–18. The claim language itself suggests that “a first athletic movement” is simply the physical exercises, drills, or activities the user is instructed to perform via the first instructions. See Pet. Reply 4 (Petitioner arguing that the “instructions” recited in claim 1 “define the first and second athletic movements”). So, if the “first instructions” (notably plural) instructed a user to run one mile, then running one mile would be the “first athletic movement”; and likewise, if the “first instructions” instructed a user to perform 10 squats, perform 10 push-ups, and run one mile, then performing the 10 squats, performing 10 push-ups, and running one mile would be the “first athletic movement.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we find no suggestion in claim 1 that “a first athletic movement” should be limited to a single “athletic movement” or “a single type of exercise or athletic activity.” Indeed, a single “type of exercise” or single “athletic activity” both appear to be proverbial “noses of wax,” as Patent Owner provides no explanation for how the skilled artisan would definitively distinguish one type of exercise or athletic activity from another (e.g., “weightlifting” could be considered an athletic activity or a “type” of exercise, yet it comprises countless weighted physical motions and sequences; similarly, “swimming” could be considered an athletic activity or a “type” of exercise, yet it too comprises many physical forms or techniques invoking many different physical motions and sequences (such as breaststroke, backstroke, butterfly, and sidestroke). We note that claim 6, which depends directly from independent claim 1, recites: “[W]herein the first instructions and the second instructions include a plurality of drills configured to test a plurality of fitness attributes of the user and a plurality of athleticism attributes of the user.” Ex. 1001, 26:57–60 (emphases added). Although less than artfully worded, we find that dependent claim 6 plainly requires that the first (and second) instructions provided to the user in claim 1 instruct the user on performing “a plurality of drills” (i.e., more than a single drill), which further supports our interpretation of “a first athletic movement.” See Pet. Reply 4. Patent Owner argues, inter alia, claim 6 specifies that “the first instructions and second instructions must be selected from a specific ‘plurality of drills’— rather than from some other source (e.g., an athletic competition).” PO Surreply 5–6 (emphasis added); see id. at 6–7 (Patent Owner arguing “claim 6 simply requires the first and second instructions to identify a first and second ‘athletic movement’ that are selected from a certain catalog of drills” (emphasis added)). We find Patent Owner’s attempt to contort “includes” to mean “selected from” a certain grouping unavailing, because “including” A, B, and C is simply not the same as “select[ing] [one] from” A, B, and C.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Both parties argue that the terms “first instructions” and “first activity data” should have their ordinary and customary meanings or otherwise do not require construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. PO Resp. 21–22; Pet. Reply 8–10. We agree.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Claims: We turn first to the claim language itself. We are mindful of Judge Rich’s guidance from over thirty years ago: in all aspects of claim construction, “the name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles Sutherland Rich, Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims–American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “providing first instructions to a user to perform a first athletic movement.” Ex. 1001, 26:17–18. The claim language itself suggests that “a first athletic movement” is simply the physical exercises, drills, or activities the user is instructed to perform via the first instructions. See Pet. Reply 4 (Petitioner arguing that the “instructions” recited in claim 1 “define the first and second athletic movements”). So, if the “first instructions” (notably plural) instructed a user to run one mile, then running one mile would be the “first athletic movement”; and likewise, if the “first instructions” instructed a user to perform 10 squats, perform 10 push-ups, and run one mile, then performing the 10 squats, performing 10 push-ups, and running one mile would be the “first athletic movement.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we find no suggestion in claim 1 that “a first athletic movement” should be limited to a single “athletic movement” or “a single type of exercise or athletic activity.” Indeed, a single “type of exercise” or single “athletic activity” both appear to be proverbial “noses of wax,” as Patent Owner provides no explanation for how the skilled artisan would definitively distinguish one type of exercise or athletic activity from another (e.g., “weightlifting” could be considered an athletic activity or a “type” of exercise, yet it comprises countless weighted physical motions and” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,188,930 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,188,930 - Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00349 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sirmans and Kobayashi; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“period,” “should be given [its] ordinary and customary meaning,” which according to Patent Owner, is “receiving an activity time period from a user during a goal setting operation.” PO Resp. 11–12 (emphasis added); see id. at 11–13; PO Sur-reply 2–8. Petitioner proposes that limitation 1[b] also should be given its ordinary and customary meaning, but contends the meaning is simply what it recites, “receiving an activity time period,” which does not require the “activity time period” to be received “from a user during a goal setting operation.” Pet. Reply 2–6; Pet. 18. We agree with Petitioner, and determine that limitation 1[b] does not require the “activity time period” to be received “from a user during a goal setting operation,” as discussed below.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in engineering, computer science, industrial design, biomechanics, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of experience researching, developing, designing, and/or testing fitness or physiological sensors, wearable devices, physiological or biomechanical devices, remotely controlled systems or interfaces, network-based applications and/or equipment, or the equivalent experience or education. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). Patent Owner “does not dispute [Petitioner’s] proposed level of skill in the art” in this case. PO Resp. 11.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“period,” “should be given [its] ordinary and customary meaning,” which according to Patent Owner, is “receiving an activity time period from a user during a goal setting operation.” PO Resp. 11–12 (emphasis added); see id. at 11–13; PO Sur-reply 2–8. Petitioner proposes that limitation 1[b] also should be given its ordinary and customary meaning, but contends the meaning is simply what it recites, “receiving an activity time period,” which does not require the “activity time period” to be received “from a user during a goal setting operation.” Pet. Reply 2–6; Pet. 18. We agree with Petitioner, and determine that limitation 1[b] does not require the “activity time period” to be received “from a user during a goal setting operation,” as discussed below.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had “a strong motivation” to combine the teachings of Sirmans and Kobayashi, which are “in the same field of personal fitness monitoring,” because doing so would have “further incentivize[d] regular exercise,” and that the skilled artisan would have done so “with a high likelihood of success.” Pet. 62–63 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 124–128). Petitioner argues “it would [have been] a simple modification to include Kobayashi’s recognition of consecutive activity time periods into Sirmans’ protocol criteria,” and “[i]n view of the combined teachings of Sirmans and Kobayashi, it would [have been] easy to implement determining whether the received athletic activity data exceeds the first activity goal for a predetermined number of consecutive activity time periods.” Pet. 62–63 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 124–128). In sum, Petitioner contends Sirmans teaches determining whether received athletic activity data exceeds a first activity goal for a predetermined number of activity time periods, and turns to Kobayashi for teaching recognizing and rewarding users for achieving goals for consecutive activity time periods. See Pet. 60–63. Based on the foregoing evidence and the reasons stated in the Petition at pages 60–63, we find Petitioner sufficiently establishes that the combination of Sirmans and Kobayashi teaches or fairly suggests limitation 1[d]. Except as discussed above concerning limitation 1[b] (activity time period), Patent Owner does not contest that this limitation is present in the combination. See generally PO Resp.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,259,615 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,259,615 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00095 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 20–22, 24, 29, and 37 obvious over either asserted combination of references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 20–22, 24, 29, and 37 of the ’533 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design” and a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design. Pet. 7; Ex. 1003 ¶ 45. Petitioner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “could have also had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art and does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“For support that AHIT would have been understood to display the required “first user interface,” Petitioner only points us to its testimonial evidence; however, the cited testimony is substantively the same as the argument presented in the Petition with no additional citations to the record that indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood AHIT to disclose the recited “first user interface.” Compare Pet. 20–21, with Ex. 1003 ¶ 199 (citing nothing in the record). Moreover, in its argument regarding the recited “second user interface,” Petitioner contends that “the display of a preset icon via the screen is a different interface (e.g., a first user interface) from the display of progress of collecting the ECG data via the screen (e.g., a second user interface).” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 222). Petitioner clearly equates AHIT’s display with a preset icon to the “first user interface,” which is different from its previous argument that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that a screen, and certainly a screen with the disclosed prompt of AHIT’s wearable device, would have displayed a first user interface indicating that the wearable device was ready to detect biometric information” and “that the first user interface was displayed to inform the user, prior to the collection of the ECG data, that the device was ready to collect ECG data because the user would need to be informed that the trigger action could be effectively received by the device.” Compare id. at 20–21, with id. at 25–26. The cited testimonial evidence also opines that “the person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the AHIT user interface would transition from a preset icon (e.g., a first user interface) to a display of ¶ 222. Petitioner’s declarant also equates AHIT’s display of a preset icon with the first user interface, which contradicts AHIT’s disclosure that “when collecting ECG data, the wearable device may display a preset icon via the screen.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 39. We, therefore, give little weight to the opinion of Petitioner’s declarant regarding the “first user interface” because it does not make clear what teaches, suggests, or would have been understood to disclose the “first user interface” and conflicts with what AHIT describes. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 199, with id. ¶ 222 and Ex. 1006 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner, however, provides insufficient argument and evidence that resuming initialization or resetting the data processing device would revert to a first user interface after the first input was no longer detected for a second period of time or replace the information displayed on the user interface. Pet. 16, 34. As implicitly acknowledged by Petitioner, the cited portions of Hooper do not describe replacing displayed information. See Pet. 16, 34; Ex. 1007, 2:22–3:13, 6:15–25, Fig. 2. The cited testimonial evidence also does not cite to any part of the record that would tend to support the opinion that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that resuming initialization or resetting the data processing device would replace the display” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 181), a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that resuming display” (id. ¶ 249), and “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to revert to the first user interface after the first input was no longer detected for a second period of time” (id. ¶ 250). Petitioner’s declarant also does not explain why “a change in the display would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of AHIT’s explicit goal of saving wearable device resources.” Id. ¶ 248. Petitioner does not argue adequately or cite sufficient evidence that changing from one user interface to another would have saved wearable device resources. Pet. 34; Ex. 1003 ¶ 248. As discussed previously, Petitioner does not provide sufficient argument and evidence that its proposed combination would have had “a first user interface indicating that the first electronic device is ready to detect biometric information.” Even if Petitioner did adequately show that its proposed combination would have had the required first user interface, Petitioner fails to show with sufficient argument and evidence that its proposed combination would have “replac[ed] display of the second user interface with the first user interface,” for the above-discussed reasons.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,568,533 - PTAB · May 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00080 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be obvious over Schneider.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of Inter Partes Review Because we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Schneider, we institute inter partes review of all claims and all challenges raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2020) (35 U.S.C. § 314 “simply requires [the Director] to decide whether the petitioner is likely to succeed on ‘at least 1’ claim. Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the petitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims; the Director need not even consider any other claim before instituting review.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution in deference to the two co-pending district court infringement litigations. See Pet. 4. In support, each Petitioner entity (Dropbox, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation) “stipulates that, if the Board institutes IPR, it will not pursue in its parallel district court proceeding the grounds raised, or which reasonably could have been raised, in” the Petition. Id. Petitioner asserts this stipulation means “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation.” Id. (quoting USPTO Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022)7 at 3, 7). Patent Owner does not address discretionary denial in its Preliminary Response. We do not exercise the authority to discretionarily deny institution.” slip op. at 36
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“held 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 file management, restoration, and archival systems.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 29–32). Petitioner further asserts “[m]ore education, e.g., a Master’s or PhD could compensate for a lack of work experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See Prelim. Resp. 9 (“Patent Owner does not offer a competing definition at this time, because even under Petitioner’s proposed definition the Petition fails to present a reasonable likelihood of success.”). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’850 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes any claim terms for construction. Petitioner states it “appl[ies] the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner states it “does not believe any claim constructions are necessary based on the arguments presented by Patent Owner at this time.” Prelim. Resp. 26. We conclude, at this stage, that it is not necessary to address the construction of any claim terms or phrases. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,585,850 - PTAB · May 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00079 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–6, 8–20, and 23–31 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have reviewed the preliminary record, and we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions at least for claim 1. First, we summarize the disclosures of Kenley and Long, then we consider the parties’ opposing contentions concerning the challenged claims.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“We conclude Petitioner has explained with supporting evidence how the combination of Kenley and Long would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success and without hindsight, sufficiently to justify institution of review. In particular, on this record, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kenley’s process of backing up files, by triggering the creation of an archive file whenever a file is modified using three successive backup memories per the teachings of Long. See Pet. 13, 18. Dr. Maier testifies in support that this would have been done to improve the reliability of Kenley’s file archiving process, by avoiding the potential loss of data created in between Kenley’s archiving of files at predetermined time intervals. See Pet. 13–15, 18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–50, 52–53, 58. Patent Owner does not materially dispute the increased reliability benefits achieved by modifying Kenley’s file-based backup process in this fashion, in the present preliminary record. Instead, Patent Owner pre-supposes that Petitioner’s case for obviousness is premised on the bodily incorporation of Long’s sector-based archiving process into Kenley’s file-based archiving process. However, that is not what Petitioner proposes, as summarized in detail above. Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference (such as Long) may be bodily incorporated into the structure or process of the other reference (such as Kenley), but rather is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Further, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21. On the present record, we discern no reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been deterred from modifying Kenley’s file archiving process to be triggered whenever a file is modified and to use three successive backup memories per the teachings of Long, or would not have expected success in doing so.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Even considering the merits of Patent Owner’s reliance on Schneider as teaching away as being pertinent to Petitioner’s Ground One, we find on the present record that Schneider discusses various differences between file-based backup processes and sector-based backup processes, including some pros and cons of each approach. See Ex. 1020, 2:23–3:2, 5:8–16, 6:1– 7, 6:18–22, 14:4–9, 24:20–27; Prelim. Resp. 22–23. For example, a sector-based backup is faster and requires less administration than a file-based backup (see Ex. 1020, 2:22–28, 6:18–22, 24:20–22), whereas a file-based backup can be restored more efficiently than a sector-based backup (see id. at 2:28–3:2). We conclude on the present record that Schneider does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage file-based backup processes, as is required for a teaching away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, Schneider expressly recognizes that its methods may be used in connection with file-based backup processes. See Ex. 1020, 11:4–5 (“[T]he present invention can also be implemented as part of the operating system.”), 24:1–19 (“The present invention can be implemented either at the sector (disk) level or as part of an operating system’s filing system at the file level.”).” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We conclude Petitioner’s stipulation is commensurate in scope with a Sotera stipulation. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12, at 13–14, 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential); Guidance Memo, at 3. The Guidance Memo states: Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB. Guidance Memo, 3, 7–8. For this reason, we do not deny institution in view of the two co-pending district court infringement litigations.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,218,348
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.