• Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00192 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2–6 or 12–17 were unpatentable; claims 1 and 7–11 had been disclaimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21

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

    “More importantly, Petitioner provides no sufficient reasoning and cites no support for construing the required “self-opening mechanism” to be so broad as to include a mechanism that provides “only some damping against gravity to be ‘self-opening.’” Reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a component that only opposes opening is not a “self-opening mechanism.” See Sur-reply 2. In short, as shown by Patent Owner, the plain and ordinary meaning of “self-opening mechanism” in the context of the ’315 patent, as required by claims 2–6 and 12–17, is a mechanism that acts on its own accord to open the stowage bin door. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2006). An express construction of any other claim term is not necessary for” slip op. at 15

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

    “obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “9 Patent Owner also argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) to deny institution of inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 36–46. We deny institution of inter partes review for the reasons provided above and, therefore, do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,760,315
• Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01419 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s second petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021-01418. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Bajaj, however, testifies that he disagrees with Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill because the definition “exceeds the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 25. Nonetheless, Dr. Bajaj does not propose a specific level of ordinary skill in the art and states that, for purposes of his declaration, he applies Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’443 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “prosecution history sheds substantial light on how the applicants understood the disputed claim language. As set forth above, in response to rejections based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1103, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23

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

    “regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 30–36 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 41–53 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1. d. Independent Claim 7 and Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 As noted above, limitation [7j] of independent claim 7 recites the same “offset value” language as limitation [1j] and Petitioner relies on its arguments and evidence directed to limitation [1j] in its discussion of limitation [7j]. See Pet. 72–73 (limitation [7j]). For the same reasons discussed above, we find that the same deficiency regarding claim 1 applies equally to claim 7 and the claims that depend from claim 1 or claim 7— claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [7j] and, via their dependency from claim 1 or claim 7, the subject matter of dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16.” slip op. at 44

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,257,443
• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · PGR2020-00084 · APJ Frederick C Laney · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19, 21–42, and 44–53 are unpatentable as obvious over Szrek; claims 20 and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over Szrek and Gilmore.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s contention persuasive. We agree that the description of a POSA in this case, which is most consistent with the scope and content of the ’894 patent and the prior art, properly includes a working knowledge of both POS activation systems and lottery systems. Therefore, the level of skill in the art for this case is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Although Patent Owner’s proposal most accurately reflects the background of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, the differences between the parties’ proposed formulations are not material to any issue in dispute and the parties do not contend otherwise. All of the findings and conclusions set forth below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the plain meaning of “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system” applies, which is a processor [system] that processes transactions between two devices.8 We agree with Petitioner that adding “third party” to the plain meaning simply creates uncertainty. For example, it is unclear whether “third party” imports a limitation for the owner/manufacturer of the processor/system to be a different entity than the owner/manufacturer of the retailer and lottery administration devices (which is unrelated to the functionality or structure of the processor/system) or whether “third party” 8 Rather than “between two devices,” Patent Owner refers to “between a lottery administration system and retailer.” PO Resp. 20. Because other elements in the claims dictate the particular devices with which the transaction processor communicates, we determine that it would be improper to import that limitation into the meaning of “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system.” Nevertheless, even if those particular devices were imported, it would not change our obviousness analysis because no issue rests on whether the alleged transaction processor in the prior art is processing a transaction between a lottery administration system and retailer. imports a limitation for the processor/system to be a separate and distinct device from the retailer point of sale and lottery administration devices. Although Patent Owner’s counsel made clear that the latter interpretation was intended (Tr. 41:10–42:7, 43:2–43:15), we do not agree that the use of the words “third party” in Figures 7 and 8 of the ’894 patent limits the “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” to being a separate and distinct device from the retailer and lottery administration devices. Identifying the transaction processor as a “Third Party Processor” in two illustrative figures depicting a process (Ex. 1001, Figs. 7, 8), without anything more in the written description to explain why a “third party processor” may be an important or significant aspect of the transaction processor or invention as a whole, does not justify limiting the plain meaning of a “transaction processor” to the “third party processor” shown. Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp., 783 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that an invention will only be limited to its preferred embodiment when “the patentee uses words that manifest a clear intention to restrict the scope of the claims to that embodiment”).” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Therefore, we construe “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” in accordance with their plain meaning, which is a processor [system] that processes transactions between two devices. Additionally, we decline to limit “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” to “third party” processors or systems because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty. However, we do construe the “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system,” “retailer”/“retailer POS,” and “lottery administration system” as separate and distinct components.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “processing unit, causes payment confirmation for the pre-printed lottery ticket to be provided to the lottery administration system. And Patent Owner disputes whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown Szrek discloses the transaction processor (store back office 240) provides payment confirmation to the lottery administration system (game provider 250). PO Resp. 13–14, 48–53; Sur-reply 19–20. We are persuaded by Petitioner, however, that Szrek’s description of the inter-operational characteristics of store back office 240, cash register/POS terminal 230, and game provider system 250 would have suggested to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention that store back office 240 would include an instruction to cause payment confirmation for the pre-printed lottery ticket to be provided to the game provider system 250. Ex. 1007, 4:28–29, 4:56–67, 5:17–20, 6:44–47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 62–64.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 10,769,894 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,769,894
• Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01265 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 3 is unpatentable under §103 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet; the Board did not reach the Tayloe and Kawada ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “proposes that it be construed to mean “an element that stores a nonnegligible amount of energy from an input electromagnetic (EM) signal.” Pet. Reply 10. Petitioner contends that its proposed construction expressly tracks the definition provided in the ’551 patent for “storage element,” which the parties agree is synonymous with “storage module.” Id.; see id. at 10 n.2. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the ’551 patent states: “Storage modules . . . refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:65–67). Petitioner notes that the ’551 patent also states that “the ‘goal of the storage modules’ is ‘to store non-negligible amounts of energy transferred from the EM signal’” and that the patent “specifically distinguishes storage elements from holding elements on this basis.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:59–67 (“Holding modules . . . identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of ‘holding’ a voltage value. Storage modules . . . on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.”)). Thus, Petitioner contends “‘storage element’ should be construed accordingly.” Id. at 11 (citation omitted).” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Owner fails to “establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220. In particular, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Steer makes any attempt to establish nexus with the elements recited in claim 3 based on a presumption of co-extensiveness or otherwise. Each instance in which Dr. Steer mentions claim 3, he only ties the discussion to energy transfer systems or energy sampling in general, which is based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction that we do not adopt. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 229 (“energy transfer (energy sampling) system – of claim 3”), 230 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 233 (“[u]sing energy sampling . . . as set forth in claim 3”), 234 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 235 (same), 236 (same), 237 (“using the energy transfer (energy sampling) system of claim 3”), 238 (same), 239 (“energy sampling system as set forth in claim 3”). Thus, we find that Patent Owner fails to establish that a presumption of nexus is warranted and similarly fails to establish nexus absent the presumption. Accordingly, for the reasons above, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden to establish nexus. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (patent owner “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists”).” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,110,444
• SAP SE v. Teradata US Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00863 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  Instituted review of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–13, 15, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “1. “Data Temperature” Petitioner argues that the term “data temperature” in claims 2–3, 8–9, and 12–13 “includes any value representing the number or frequency of accesses of particular data in storage, either in absolute or relative terms.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:44–47, 15:37–42, 18:24–27; Ex. 1003 ¶ 34). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. At this stage of the proceeding, and based on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term.” slip op. at 7

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

    “At this stage of the proceeding, and based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner’s three proposed constructions of “persistent data temperature” are reasonable and, as discussed further below, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that “persistent data temperature” is disclosed or suggested by the prior art under any of the three constructions. For purposes of institution, we need not determine which of these three proposed constructions is correct; however, the parties may address this issue further if appropriate during the trial. 3. Other Terms We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and two years of industry experience or research working with database and related storage management technologies,” and that “[a]dditional education, such as an M.S. in computer science, could substitute for the industry experience.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). According to Petitioner, the person of ordinary skill would have been familiar with “DRAM cache, flash or other solid-state storage device[s], tape, optical media, and other well-known storage types,” “[c]oncepts of data ‘temperature,’” “[m]ulti-level storage tiers and managing data storage between volatile devices (e.g., cache) and non-volatile devices (e.g., disk) based on temperature,” and “[w]ell-known concepts such as volatile storage, non-volatile storage, and data persistency.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:23–38, 5:65–6:3, 21:33–43, 25:21–62; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 3–4; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 18– 52; Ex. 1001, 8:7–13). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 17. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’623 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “sufficiently established that Morris inherently discloses this element based on the evidence of record. Petitioner does not point to specific portions of Morris that expressly state that storage information associated with storage of data in the disk drive (such as temperature values 420 in Figure 4) are provided to the cache, or that indicate that this step is necessarily present in Morris’s system. For example, it appears that there might be other places for storing temperature information or other ways of providing that information to the cache. Additionally, Dr. Long does not explain why one of ordinary skill would have “necessarily” understood that Morris’s process would have checked data HEADER 410 in Figure 4 to see if it contained a temperature value, and then used this temperature value as part of the Figure 2 steps, rather than obtaining the temperature value from another source. However, we determine that, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that element 1.3 would have been obvious over Morris. Petitioner’s obvious argument is supported by Dr. Long’s testimony that, when using data temperature to determine whether data should be stored in the cache (as reflected in Figure 2), it would have been obvious to “check[] the data ‘HEADER’ (410 in FIG. 4) to see if it contained a ‘temperature value’ (420 in FIG. 4), and then us[e] this temperature value as part of the FIG. 2 steps.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 51. As Dr. Long explains, data objects 400 with headers 410 and temperature values 420 in Figure 4 are “stored on a disk drive.” Id. ¶ 46. Dr. Long further testifies that one of ordinary skill “would have recognized the expressly disclosed ‘temperature value’ variable” 420 stored on the disk “as the best measure of a given data object’s temperature and the first place to check for whether a disk-stored data object had an associated temperature.” Id. “Given the express disclosure of this [temperature value] variable” 420, Dr. Long continues, it “would have been a natural choice” for the person of ordinary skill in the art to use it “when evaluating whether to cache data being read from the disk,” and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Id. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, this testimony provides logical reasons why one of ordinary skill would have provided the temperature value from the disk to the cache, and is not merely “conclusory.” We reach a similar determination as to Petitioner’s obviousness argument based on the process for determining whether data should be deleted from the cache in Morris’s Figure 3. Petitioner’s argument is supported by Morris’s statement that “[t]he data temperature is stored with the data object in the cache,” and Dr. Long’s testimony that it would have been obvious to have “this data temperature in the cache originate[] from the ‘temperature value’ retrieved from the disk when originally storing the data in the cache.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 53; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. Dr. Long further explains that “it would have been obvious to implement the Morris system in this way because the temperature maintained on the disk was the most natural source for the value of the data temperature stored in the cache,” and one of ordinary skill “would have used that approach with a reasonable expectation of success.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. “In fact,” according to Dr. Long, “given that the temperature value was persistently stored with the data on the disk,” the disk “was the only logical source for a reliable temperature value when deciding whether to load the data into the cache,” because “[a]ny other source would have risked being inaccurate or out of date and would have needlessly and redundantly stored the temperature in another location.” Id. This testimony provides logical reasons why one of ordinary skill would have provided the temperature value on the disk to the cache.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,720,623
• SAP SE v. Teradata US Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00861 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 and all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the present record, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed construction supported by the intrinsic evidence. The ordinary meaning of “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” does not require limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage, and Patent Owner does not argue to the contrary. Turning to the language of the other claims, we note that claim 5, which depends from claim 1, specifically includes additional language stating that the data is stored “only in one of two portions of the volatile storage,” but claim 1 does not include such language. The use of this additional limitation in dependent claim 5 suggests that the inventors did not intend it to be included within claim 1’s broader language reciting “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim”). Turning to the ’923 patent specification, the portions of the specification Patent Owner relies on appear to discuss a preferred embodiment of the invention, rather than limiting the invention itself. The portions of columns 14 and 15 upon which Patent Owner relies discuss Figure 3 which, the specification explains, “depicts a volatile storage 300 that uses a persistent temperature-based storage management technique as well as a conventional storage management technique in accordance with one embodiment.” Ex. 1001, 14:48–51 (emphasis added); see id. at 5:5–8 (also describing Figure 3 as being “in accordance with one embodiment” of the invention). Interpreting claim 1 to require maintaining only a single copy of a data portion in either the first portion or second portion, where that language does not exist in claim 1, would be tantamount to reading a limitation from a preferred embodiment into the claims, which would be improper. See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Patent Owner does not identify any portions of the specification suggesting that limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage is a necessary part of the invention, or that the inventors intended to expressly or impliedly define “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” to include this requirement. Consequently, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring that “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” requires “coordinating placement of data into and out of the volatile storage so as to limit the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage.” The parties may further address the meaning of this claim phrase during the trial, if appropriate.” slip op. at 10

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

    “3. Other Terms We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and two years of industry experience or research working 2 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. with database and related storage management technologies,” and that “[a]dditional education, such as an M.S. in computer science, could substitute for the industry experience as it typically involves at least two years of additional study focused exclusively on computer science, as well as a thesis or project spanning several terms to implement a substantial project.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). According to Petitioner, the person of ordinary skill would have “understood the advantages of partitioning a volatile memory into multiple different sections (e.g., buffer pools) and applying multiple different storage management (e.g., cache replacement) policies to those different sections, and known how to implement such designs.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 14. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’923 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Lee discloses this claim element. Paragraph 17 of Lee discloses the use of a temperature-based storage management technique and a non-temperature-based storage management technique (the LRU replacement policy), and that both “may be used to manage a cache.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Based on the present record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Lee’s disclosure of using these techniques “to manage a cache” involves “manag[ing] the storage of data in” the cache, because both techniques operate in order to control what data is stored in the cache. We do not find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive because it is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” to require “limit[ing] the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage,” which we do not adopt. See § II.A.2, supra. Consequently, we determine that, on the record before us, Petitioner’s cited evidence sufficiently supports its contentions regarding this limitation.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,851,923
• Netflix Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00646 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable because Kaku was not established as analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot shown unpatentableNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The field of endeavor test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–27. A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for three claim terms, including the term “trick play functionality.” Pet. 22–23. Patent Owner argues for construction of the related claim term “the first and second indexes enabling trick play functionality.” See PO Resp. 41–49. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of those claim terms because construction of the proposed terms does not impact our determination that Petitioner has not shown that one of the prior art references is analogous to the claimed invention. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached

    “Under the particular circumstances in this case, we need not assess the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. As discussed above, we have determined that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance that Kaku is analogous prior art to the ’792 patent and do not reach Petitioner’s arguments on the motivation to combine Kaku with Zetts or Seo. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 34

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “As discussed above (supra § III.E.4.a), Petitioner’s papers fail to link Dr. Reader’s declaration testimony on the level of ordinary skill in the art to the analogous art inquiry and fail to identify a field of endeavor for the ’792 patent. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s demonstrative slide 53 presents improper new arguments that have not been previously made. See Paper 38, 2 (“The parties may only rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments that have been previously made in the submitted papers. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the hearing.”), 5 (“Demonstratives are not a mechanism for making new arguments.”). We therefore sustain Patent Owner’s objections. We note, however, that demonstratives are not evidence. See id. at 5 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the hearing are not evidence, nor will they be relied upon as evidence. Rather, demonstratives are visual aids to a party’s oral presentation regarding arguments and evidence previously presented and discussed in the papers”); CTPG 84 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the final hearing are aids to oral argument and not evidence.”). In this Final Written Decision, we rely solely on the arguments properly presented in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record, not on the demonstratives.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,472,792 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,472,792
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on all petition grounds for claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 44

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

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 Petitioner 6 As noted above, Petitioner raises a second claim construction issue in its Rehearing Request. See Req. Reh’g 12–15 (asserting that the claims require only one instance of copying information from a formatted message to a response message based on which formatted message was received). Petitioner did not raise this issue in the Petition, Patent Owner has not had an contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “VI. ANALYSIS Legal Standards – Anticipation “[A] claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Anticipation is a question of fact, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009), assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00201 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable; the cited combinations did not teach or suggest a stationary map.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’698 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “through 14, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently7 that the map shown Figure 13b is stationary, as recited in claim 1. Petitioner does not rely upon Roussos as teaching the “stationary map” recited in claim 1 or assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kim in light of Roussos to satisfy this claim limitation. See, e.g., Pet. 27–30 (relying upon Kim); see also id. at 26 (discussing the proposed combination as including Roussos’s coordinate system). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Roussos teaches or suggests a stationary map as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,836,698
• Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00200 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied on all challenged claims because the petition did not show that Kim, alone or in combination, disclosed or suggested the required stationary map.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the following reasons, we find Patent Owner’s assertions have merit because Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing Kim discloses or suggests a background image of a stationary map, which is a necessary limitation in each of the challenged independent claims. Because this deficiency is dispositive and leads us to the conclusion that the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’545 patent, our discussion below focuses on Petitioner’s contentions regarding Kim’s disclosure of a stationary map.” slip op. at 12

  • Other 314aNot reached

    “V. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Prelim. Resp. 3–12. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s argument. See Paper 12 (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request to File Preliminary Replies to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses), 3 (noting that Petitioner requested authorization to file a preliminary reply to respond to Patent Owner’s argument regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a)). Because we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ’545 patent is unpatentable, we need not reach the issue of discretionary denial pursuant to § 314(a).” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’545 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNot reached

    “Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,545

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.