- PTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00617 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9–14, 16–18, and 20 on all asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). Further, when instituting an inter partes review, we “will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Here, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on all the grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“’142 patent’s earliest claimed priority date “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare field as well as 1–2 years of experience with health information technology, including specific experience with computer-based systems for recording, tracking, and analyzing patient health information.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 36). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bryan Bergeron. Ex. 1012 ¶ 36. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 2. We adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction In an inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim is construed using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 10. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Douglas’s system includes Wager’s workforce management interface. Pet. 50–52 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 138–141). Petitioner presents evidence that doing so would have been obvious because “Douglas’s system is used to treat patients with a variety of needs,” and Wager’s interface “would have helped ensure that the assigned physician was equipped, in terms of skill set, to treat the patient.” Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:36–7:4; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 138, 140). Petitioner also presents evidence that combining the cited teachings of Douglas and Wager “would have . . . helped ensure that the assigned physician had the capacity to effectively treat the patient.” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 141). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that it would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Douglas and Wager for several reasons. Prelim. Resp. 29–37. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that combining Douglas’s system with Wager’s interface is redundant because Douglas’s “patients are only subscribed to the system because they are already assigned to a physician.” Id. at 29–30. On this record, Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing. Even if a patient already saw a physician, the evidence of record indicates that Wager’s interface would have improved Douglas’s system by allowing the case administrator to assign a physician that has the appropriate skills and capacity to treat the patient. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 140–141.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,151,142 - PTAB · Sep 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00616 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–17, 19, and 20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). We may institute inter partes review when “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). After considering the Petition and the evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 4–17, 19, and 20 of the ’554 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare field as well as 1–2 years of experience with health information technology, including specific 3 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. experience with computer-based systems for recording, tracking, and analyzing patient health information.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 36). At this time, Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 2. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we determine Petitioner’s proposed level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’554 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “[n]one of the claim terms of the Challenged Claims require an explicit construction to resolve the current grounds.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner[] that, for purposes of this Preliminary Response only, all terms of the ’554 patent have their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 10. At this stage of the proceeding and based on the current record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because no such construction is necessary to determine whether to institute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))). To the extent the parties’ arguments implicate claim construction, these are discussed below with reference to limitation 1[b].4” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Fifth, Patent Owner argues that “Douglas teaches away from Wager by teaching against accomplishing its goals in an in-person [clinical] setting like the one to which Wager is directed.” Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4, 5, 11, 13). Patent Owner argues that Douglas’s system is designed for remote monitoring of patients to avoid the costs and inconvenience of in-person programs. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 1:29–35, 2:5–7). On this record, we do not agree that Douglas teaches away from a combination with Wager’s interface simply because the interfaces may be used in different environments. Moreover, Douglas teaches alternatives to remote monitoring, including in-person visits. See Ex. 1002, 11:1–2 (“The system also accepts additional patient data obtained during office visits.”); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from . . . alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”).” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,144,554 - PTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00368 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–9 on all asserted grounds: anticipation and obviousness over Horie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–9 (the “challenged claims”) of the ’564 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“and evidence that the receipt of the request and the notification of the customer each occurs via a “distinct” transmission channel. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–41 (details of communication), 44, 54, 76, 78 (sending notification), Fig. 1, Fig. 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213–215, 221, 223–227. Although Patent Owner shows that Petitioner relies on certain duplicate elements in Petitioner’s identified first and second transmission channels, the transmission channels identified include different elements as well, and thus, on the current record 7 Although Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner incorporates hundreds of paragraphs from a 139-page expert declaration in the Petition, including extensive use of block cites and diagrams,” on this record and without more specific references we do not discern improper incorporation by reference in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(1)(i) and (a)(3)); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (“The Board expects that most petitions and motions will rely upon affidavits of experts.”) (The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide is available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated). and preliminarily, we determine that they are “distinct” as required in limitation 1d. Pet. 27. With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that that Petitioner does not show that the channels are completely separate and that Figure 1 of the ’564 patent and/or other disclosed embodiments in the ’564 patent include completely separate channels (see Prelim. Resp. 4, 10–12), these arguments by Patent Owner are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which requires that “the second transmission channel [be] distinct from the first transmission channel.” To the extent that Patent Owner argues that a specific claim construction should be accorded to limitation 1d of claim 1 that excludes Horie’s partially overlapping channels, on the present record we discern no evidence or argument regarding such a claim construction. And, to the extent that Patent Owner argues a distinction between Horie and the ’564 patent disclosure (rather than the claim), such arguments are inapposite. With respect to the requirement of limitation 1e that authorization occur without requiring of a response from the customer, on the present record and for the purpose of institution, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Horie discloses this in its disclosure of a pre-authorization notification. See Pet. 29–308; Ex. 1006 ¶ 73 (sending notification during the card authentication process as opposed to after that process is complete); Ex. 8 While Patent Owner argues that Petitioner only argues that Horie “suggests” this embodiment (as opposed to disclosing it, as required for an anticipation ground) (see Prelim. Resp. 7 n.1 (quoting Pet. 29)), even given the appearance of the verb “suggests” in one instance in the Petition, we understand Petitioner’s argument is that Horie discloses a pre-authorization notification. See Pet. 29 (“Horie . . . discloses . . . the [notification] e-mail can also be sent . . . during the card authorization process”), 20 (“Horie discloses each element of claims 1 through 9”). 1003 ¶¶ 232–233. Having considered Patent Owner’s argument that “if Horie notifies a customer prior to authorization, the system requires a response” (Prelim. Resp. 8), for institution, we credit Dr. Akl’s uncontroverted testimony that the embodiment of Horie’s paragraph 73 does not require any affirmative action on the part of the customer to process a transaction but merely discloses the possibility of canceling a transaction rather than disclosing a requirement for a positive response from a recipient to authorize the transaction. Ex. 1006 ¶ 73 (“[T]he e-mail can also be sent . . . during the card authentication process . . . [to make] it possible to issue a transaction cancellation request to the authentication hosts.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 233. We additionally do not agree with Patent Owner’s allegation that Horie does not enable the disclosure of paragraph 73. Prelim. Resp. 8–9 n.2. While Petitioner asserts that Horie does not disclose the details regarding a transaction cancellation request (Pet. 18), we note that the issuance of a transaction cancellation request is not part of the claimed invention, and determine that on this record, Petitioner’s argument (or admission) in the Petition regarding the disclosure of Horie is not sufficient to cast doubt on the likelihood of Petitioner’s success before us by removing the presumption of enablement. See Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharm., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (establishing a presumption that an anticipating disclosure in a prior art patent is enabling); Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 Fed. Appx. 443, 449 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (adopting this for AIA trial proceedings). For these reasons, upon consideration of the preliminary record, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown a likelihood of success in showing claim 1 to be anticipated by Horie.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther
“While Petitioner’s argument with respect to claim 1d is presented as an obviousness argument, we do not discern that Petitioner presents any argument distinct from its analysis for anticipation. Id. at 39–42. While Petitioner cites Dr. Akl’s testimony to support its arguments regarding what Horie discloses, Petitioner does not discuss Dr. Akl’s testimony regarding obviousness or provide any suggestion of what a modification of Horie would be or discuss, e.g., motivation or expectation of success for a modification. Compare Pet. 39–42 with Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“[The] differences between the channels described in Horie would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that separate lines of communication could be employed in Horie’s system.”). Similarly, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 2 do not appear to address obviousness.” slip op. at 25
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,783,564 - PTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00367 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Horie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted 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) (2024). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’310 patent has an application filing date of March 11, 2005, we apply the pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability. See Ex. 1001, code (22). 2 Japanese Patent Application 2002-133100, published May 10, 2002 (Ex. 1009). All citations are to the Petitioner-provided English translation. Ex. 1006. claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’310 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue this ground. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.10 10 As guidance to the parties, we note that it is unclear that the Petition, unlike Dr. Akl’s testimony, argues how a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Horie. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 98 (arguing that the differences between the first and second transmission channels in Horie “would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that separate and independent lines of communication could be employed in Horie’s system for the sending/receiving of requests and notifications.”), with Pet. 32–33 (not making the argument in Dr. Akl’s testimony). The parties should address in the Response and Reply (1) whether the Petition argues how and why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Horie and (2), if not, whether we can rely on the argument in Dr. Akl’s testimony that is not made in the Petition.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “no claim terms require an express construction.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). 3 If Patent Owner disagrees with this formulation of the level of skill in the art, it must raise that disagreement in its Response. If a different level of skill would affect the outcome in this case, the parties must brief that issue as well. The failure of Patent Owner to describe how a different level of skill in the art is determinative will be a forfeiture of that argument. If there is a dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, then the parties are also encouraged to submit evidence, other than conclusory expert testimony, that supports their position. 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.”). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.4, 5 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 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,357,310 - PTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00369 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 based on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). We may institute inter partes review when “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). After considering the Petition and the evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–7 of the ’706 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“motivated to combine Horie and Kobayashi, specifically to improve Horie’s confirmation option. Pet. 18–21. For example, Petitioner asserts Horie discloses sending a card transaction notification to a user device, with the option to issue a transaction cancellation request. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 73). But, Petitioner notes that Horie does not disclose details on cancelling a transaction. Id. So Petitioner asserts that one of skill in the art would have looked to Kobayashi’s known techniques for preventing fraudulent transactions. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–73). Specifically, Petitioner cites to Kobayashi’s method for verifying user identity, by notifying a user of a transaction using a pre-registered mobile phone number. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 57; Ex. 1003 ¶ 74). In response, the user indicates whether or not the card can be used by entering a number determined at the time of card creation and a predetermined operation button. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 60, 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–74). Petitioner contends that implementing Kobayashi’s fraud prevention interface with Horie applies a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. Id. at 20 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75, 76). Petitioner concludes that, given the similarity between Horie and Kobayashi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the disclosures. Id. at 20–21 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75, 76). On this record and for purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner has presented sufficient motivation to combine Horie and Kobayashi and reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“terms require an express construction.” Pet. 8. Instead, Petitioner addresses what it asserts is a typographical error in claim 1, which twice recites the term “merchant’s.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:54); see also Ex. 1001, 5:56. The possessive term “merchant’s” is not followed by a subject noun. See id. Although not identified by Petitioner, claim 6 also includes the recitation of “merchant’s” without a subject noun. See Ex. 1001, 6:52. Petitioner contends that during prosecution of the parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,357,310 B2, “the applicant explained that the ‘secure network and the ‘payment guarantee’ channel are illustrated between the acquirer 8 [sic] and the modem 5 of the merchant’s terminal.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 45). Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that both instances of “merchant’s” should be read as “merchant’s terminal.” Id. We accept Petitioner’s argument at this stage of the proceeding. The parties should address this apparent typographical error in claims 1 and 6 during trial, including (1) whether there is an obvious typographical error and (2) whether we should correct it. See Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., 35 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Beable Education, Inc. v. Achieve3000, Inc., IPR2021-01169, Paper 34, 10–11 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2023) (Final Written Decision). At this stage of the proceeding and based on the current record, we need not construe explicitly any of the claim language discussed in this section or any other claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below.8 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) at the time the invention was made “would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with wired and wireless networks used to securely process requests for authorization of activity such as financial transactions.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Additionally, Petitioner contends that “[l]ess experience is necessary with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, less education is necessary with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Id. Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. 6 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we determine this level of skill, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which we remove from Petitioner’s proposal, comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’706 patent and the prior art of record.7” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,954,706 - PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00699 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 based on the § 103(a) grounds instituted in the LG IPR and granted VIZIO’s motion to join that proceeding.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an IPR may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition 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 we discuss below, we institute an IPR as to claims 1–18 of the ’805 patent, and we grant VIZIO’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“because this proceeding and the LG IPR are substantively identical (i.e., they involve the same claims, the same patent, the same prior art references, the same expert declaration, and the same arguments and evidence). See Mot. for Joinder 4–6. Stated differently, VIZIO asserts that the Petition and supporting evidence filed in this proceeding do not raise any new substantive or procedural issues. See id. VIZIO further argues that, because it is willing to work with counsel for LG (i.e., as an understudy) to consolidate all filings and discovery, joinder will not impact the schedule of the LG IPR, thereby allowing us to complete a single consolidated proceeding in a timely manner. Id. at 7–9. VIZIO also argues that, if it is joined as a party with the LG IPR, Multimedia will not suffer any prejudice because granting joinder under these circumstances will not add new issues for consideration by or costs to Multimedia above and beyond those already presented in the LG IPR, nor will granting joinder affect the issues, briefing, or discovery in the LG IPR, as they will remain the same. Id. at 9–10. Given that Multimedia did not oppose VIZIO’s Motion for Joinder (Ex. 3002), and VIZIO agrees to consolidate all filings and discovery with LG (Mot. for Joinder 6–7), VIZIO has demonstrated that joinder will not unduly complicate or delay the LG IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (providing for “the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding” (emphases added)). We, therefore, grant VIZIO’s Motion for Joinder and, as a result, join VIZIO as a party with the LG IPR.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 10,419,805 - PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00696 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 on the existing § 103(a) grounds and granted VIZIO’s motion to join the LG IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an IPR may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition 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 we discuss below, we institute an IPR as to claims 1–14 of the ’174 patent, and we grant VIZIO’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“14, 2024 (Paper 4 (“Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response), 1), and the Motion for Joinder was filed on the same day. As such, VIZIO’s Motion for Joinder was timely, because joinder was requested no later than one month after May 21, 2024, the institution date of the LG IPR. See LG IPR Dec. on Inst.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 9,247,174 - PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00694 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 11–16, 21, and 22 based on the same § 103(a) grounds as the LG IPR, and joined VIZIO to that proceeding.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an IPR may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition 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 we discuss below, we institute an IPR as to claims 1–6, 11–16, 21, and 22 of the ’040 patent, and we grant VIZIO’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“In its Motion for Joinder, VIZIO contends that joinder is appropriate because this proceeding and the LG IPR are substantively identical (i.e., they involve the same claims, the same patent, the same prior art references, the same expert declaration, and the same arguments and evidence). See Mot. for Joinder 4–6. Stated differently, VIZIO asserts that the Petition and supporting evidence filed in this proceeding do not raise any new substantive or procedural issues. See id. VIZIO further argues that, because it is willing to work with counsel for LG (i.e., as an understudy) to consolidate all filings and discovery, joinder will not impact the schedule of the LG IPR, thereby allowing us to complete a single consolidated proceeding in a timely manner. Id. at 6–9. VIZIO also argues that, if it is joined as a party with the LG IPR, Multimedia will not suffer any prejudice because granting joinder under these circumstances will not add new issues for consideration by or costs to Multimedia above and beyond those already presented in the LG IPR, nor will granting joinder affect the issues, briefing, or discovery in the LG IPR, as they will remain the same. Id. at 9–10. Given that Multimedia did not oppose VIZIO’s Motion for Joinder (Ex. 3002), and VIZIO agrees to consolidate all filings and discovery with LG (Mot. for Joinder 6–9), VIZIO has demonstrated that joinder will not unduly complicate or delay the LG IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (providing for “the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding” (emphases added)). We, therefore, grant VIZIO’s Motion for Joinder and, as a result, join VIZIO as a party with the LG IPR.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 9,510,040 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00353 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6, 8–10, 12–17, and 19 based on the reasonable likelihood that the Kim, Bae, and WD-Manual combinations, with Coburn for certain claims, render them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“On June 21, 2022, the Director issued interim guidance in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. See Director Memo. Notably, the Director stated that “the PTAB [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] 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 ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Director Memo at 3. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding under Fintiv because LG filed a Sotera stipulation in both this proceeding and the district court case where LG is a party. Pet. 131; Ex. 1025.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“For purposes of institution, there is sufficient evidence in the record that enables us to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Lippman, LG argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . in the field of the ’254 patent, as of its earliest possible filing date of August 17, 2012, would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the television display technology that is pertinent to the ’254 patent. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of television systems and networking, human-computer interaction, or related technologies. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). For the limited purposes of its Preliminary Response, “[Multimedia] adopts [LG’s] definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Pet. 10–11). To the extent necessary, we adopt LG’s assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’254 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“In any event, the “mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the claimed invention. Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. When combining references to establish obviousness, the appropriate consideration is whether the proposed combination would work for its intended purpose, not whether the proposed combination is inconsistent with the stated goal of one of the references, as Multimedia argues. See Prelim. Resp. 30; DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Furthermore, “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.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (citation omitted). To the extent Multimedia argues that LG’s reasons to combine the relevant teachings of Kim with those of Bae and WD-Manual are deficient, we determine, on the preliminary record, that LG has made a sufficient showing regarding the proposed combination. See Prelim. Resp. 31 n.4. At this stage in the proceeding, Multimedia merely offers attorney argument that Kim’s remote controller 200, which may include “other appropriate user input device[s],” is a generic statement that an improvement is possible, but it does not suffice to incorporate the specific features of Bae or WD-Manual. Id. (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 175); cf. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). Based on the preliminary record, LG has presented sufficient arguments and evidence for purposes of institution that would support the following: (1) modifying Kim’s CHANNEL BROWSER card object 1340 or TV GUIDE card object 1350 to include Bae’s on screen channel number selection window 330 so that the user may change the channel by selecting corresponding numbers using left and right arrow keys; and (2) modifying Kim’s remote controller 200 to include WD-Manual’s remote control features, including, among other things, assigning or programming any one of the shortcut/function keys A, B, C, and D to display specific types of media content or device information. See Pet. 18–25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38, 60, 86, 90, 115, 127, 174, 175, 177, 188, 192–217, 283, Figs. 7, 8, 22, 38; Ex. 1006, 5–7, 11, 25–26, 138–139; Ex. 1008 ¶ 23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–83.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“In any event, the “mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the claimed invention. Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. When combining references to establish obviousness, the appropriate consideration is whether the proposed combination would work for its intended purpose, not whether the proposed combination is inconsistent with the stated goal of one of the references, as Multimedia argues. See Prelim. Resp. 30; DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Furthermore, “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.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (citation omitted). To the extent Multimedia argues that LG’s reasons to combine the relevant teachings of Kim with those of Bae and WD-Manual are deficient, we determine, on the preliminary record, that LG has made a sufficient showing regarding the proposed combination. See Prelim. Resp. 31 n.4. At this stage in the proceeding, Multimedia merely offers attorney argument that Kim’s remote controller 200, which may include “other appropriate user input device[s],” is a generic statement that an improvement is possible, but it does not suffice to incorporate the specific features of Bae or WD-Manual. Id. (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 175); cf. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). Based on the preliminary record, LG has presented sufficient arguments and evidence for purposes of institution that would support the following: (1) modifying Kim’s CHANNEL BROWSER card object 1340 or TV GUIDE card object 1350 to include Bae’s on screen channel number selection window 330 so that the user may change the channel by selecting corresponding numbers using left and right arrow keys; and (2) modifying Kim’s remote controller 200 to include WD-Manual’s remote control features, including, among other things, assigning or programming any one of the shortcut/function keys A, B, C, and D to display specific types of media content or device information. See Pet. 18–25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38, 60, 86, 90, 115, 127, 174, 175, 177, 188, 192–217, 283, Figs. 7, 8, 22, 38; Ex. 1006, 5–7, 11, 25–26, 138–139; Ex. 1008 ¶ 23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–83.” slip op. at 35
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,055,254 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00352 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims were obvious over Woods and over Woods with Machida.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Sotera stipulation must be filed in the two parallel district court cases. See Prelim. Resp. 13–16. This same argument was raised previously in another proceeding before the Board. See Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Alidouble, Inc., IPR2023-00369, Paper 7 at 10 (PTAB July 12, 2023) (Institution Decision) (declining to discount petitioner’s stipulation because petitioner did not file it in the district court). In Taiwan Semiconductor, patent owner urged the Board to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314(a) in light of a parallel district court litigation because, in part, petitioner had not filed the stipulation in the district court. Id. at 9. The Board disagreed and found that the Director’s Memo does not require that such a stipulation be filed in the district court, only that the petitioner must “stipulate[]” or “present[] a stipulation.” Id. (citing Director’s Memo at 3, 7). Here, we agree with the Board’s reasoning in Taiwan Semiconductor case, and we understand the Director’s Memo as only requiring Petitioner to “stipulate[]” or “present[] a stipulation.” The Director’s Memo is silent regarding any requirement for Petitioner to file a stipulation in the district court case where Petitioner is a party. Director’s Memo at 3, 7. Even if arguendo Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation should also be filed in district court, here Petitioner did file a “Notice of Sotera Stipulation” in the district court case where Petitioner is a party. Ex. 1012. This Notice states that “[LG] hereby stipulate[s], consistent with the stipulation made by the [p]etitioner in Sotera that, if the PTAB institutes an IPR in response to [LG’s] petition against [Multimedia’s] U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 (IPR2024- 00352), [LG] will not pursue in this litigation the grounds raised or any other grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB in that instituted proceeding.” Id. at 2. Consequently, the purpose of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation has been achieved here because it “mitigates any concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board, as well as concerns of potentially conflicting decisions.” Sotera, Paper 12 at 19 (citing Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 12 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (Decision Granting Request for Rehearing) (informative)). Although Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation would have little, if any, impact on the district court case where Vizio is a party (see Prelim. Resp. 16–17), the Director’s interim guidance does not condition or otherwise qualify the effect of a Sotera stipulation on our exercise of discretion to deny this Petition based on any remaining defendants in the parallel district court cases that are not subject to the stipulation (see Director Memo at 7, 9). Put simply, Petitioner has filed a Sotera stipulation in this proceeding and, as a result, we will not exercise our discretion to deny its’ Petition.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Woods, considered as a single reference under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose claim construction for any term, although it identifies two terms it contends are defined in the Specification of the ’174 patent. Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s statements on claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 30. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., 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))). To the extent necessary for institution, we note a disagreement between the parties regarding the term “application panel” in claims 1 and 10, and address it below. See infra § VI.A.10.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“the operation panels of Machida to be relevant to a television environment,” and that Machida performs panel selection automatically and not as a direct result of user selection, and therefore Machida “teaches away from combining Machida with Woods, particularly with respect to the panels described in Woods.” Prelim. Resp. 39. But Machida expressly describes a television environment in paragraph 35, which explicitly contemplates “TV type services, data broadcasting services, and data added TV services.” Moreover, we preliminarily are of the view that Patent Owner is imputing an overly narrow construction to at least claim 1 regarding the term “panel,” as discussed supra. Further, a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For at least these reasons, we preliminarily find that Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1–14 under Ground 3 over Woods and Machida are sufficient at this juncture.” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,247,174
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.