- PTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00828 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, as well as the evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14 of the ’086 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the relied-on teachings of Rogers and Rosenberg. Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1003 (Nielsen Decl.) ¶¶ 86–91; Ex. 1006, code (57) (Abstract), 3:4–10, 4:15–19, 4:48– 62,7:59–62, Figs. 1, 2A; Ex. 1007, code (57) (Abstract), ¶¶ 30, 49, 50, Fig. 1). With regard to motivation to combine, the Petition provides: Both references are directed to allowing users to input information via touchsurface technology and are analogous art to the ’086 patent. . . . [A] POSITA would have found Rogers and Rosenberg to be compatible because of the technical similarity of their teachings, and a POSITA would have further recognized that Rosenberg’s finger orientation disclosures, applied to Rogers’ graphical passcode disclosures, would facilitate a “natural and intuitive” means of implementing the teachings of Rogers. A POSITA therefore would have been motivated to look to Rosenberg to improve Rogers, and vice-versa. . . . A POSITA . . . would have considered the disclosures in Rosenberg and been motivated to modify Rogers’ “large fingertip and a small stylus tip” example so that it instead used the “natural and intuitive” finger pad versus finger end distinction discussed in Rosenberg. A POSITA would have found this modification to be a simple substitution of elements well known in the art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the benefits disclosed in Rosenberg by making the modification, which involved only routine skill. . . . [A]dding finger end and finger pad touch detection to Rogers would involve no more than applying a known technique (i.e., finger end and finger pad touch detection/distinction as taught by Rosenberg) to a known device ready for improvement (Rogers’ apparatus having “large fingertip and a small stylus tip” capabilities) to yield predictable results (simple to use touch screen interface with multipoint targeting and multi-finger gesturing). . . . It also would have been obvious to combine Rogers with Rosenberg because both references disclose touch screen interfaces that detect a contact area of a finger. . . . A POSITA would have considered Rosenberg’s disclosures and been motivated to modify the “graphical passcode” features of Rogers so that the disclosed device is capable of detecting information input by a pad or end of a finger, because it would provide a “generally easily distinguishable” basis upon which to program the device disclosed in Rogers to detect a “measurable parameter” based on “contact area.” A POSITA would have further recognized that these features of Rogers and Rosenberg could be successfully combined because both references teach a “calibration” mode in which the user trains the device to recognize a specific range of input parameters that allows for some variation in input while remaining within acceptable tolerances. . . . A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Rogers in this manner for at least the same reasons.” slip op. at 32
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“The Guidance Memo provides that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Guidance Memo 7. Petitioner has presented such a stipulation in this proceeding. Paper 8 (Petitioner’s Sotera Stipulation). Petitioner’s Stipulation states: In accordance with the Board’s precedential decision in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020‐01019, Paper 13 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. 12 at 18‐19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Petitioners) stipulate that if the Board institutes inter partes review in this proceeding, IPR2024-00828, then Petitioners will not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding, Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS, the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Id. at 1. For this reason, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under Section 314(a).” slip op. at 44
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“[a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were 14 Chapter 31 (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) relates to inter partes review. presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 45
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,982,086 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00745 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 45–47, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 68, and 69 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Buibas and Sinyavskiy.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Considering the subject matter of the ’474 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’474 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that, at this stage of the proceeding, “no formal constructions are presently necessary,” and that it “maps the prior art in this Petition in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s allegations of infringement before the district court.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1017; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25. Patent Owner does not propose a claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction of any claim terms. 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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill “would have reasonably expected success implementing the combination, especially as Buibas and Sinyavskiy describe highly similar systems involving spiking neural networks used for training/operating robots.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Indeed, Petitioner contends, “Buibas itself confirms that its spiking neural network can be partitioned, while Sinyavskiy provides the details for doing so.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). In response, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is flawed because “there is no articulated reasoning regarding what specific element of claim 45 Buibas . . . does not disclose.” Prelim. Resp. 19–20. In other words, according to Patent Owner, Petitioner “failed to perform a proper obviousness analysis because Petitioner has failed to identify anything in the claims that Buibas lacks disclosure of for Ground 1A.” Id. at 20. Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has set forth sufficient reasoning to support a motivation to combine Buibas and Sinyavskiy for purposes of institution, as well as sufficient reasoning to support the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is flawed because it fails to identify what is lacking in Buibas’s disclosure. To the contrary, Petitioner explains that Buibas “broadly suggests” that its spiking neural networks “can be partitioned into modules for different tasks or behaviors” but “discloses little detail about the partitioning,” and that Sinyavskiy’s more detailed disclosure of partitioning spiking neural networks would fill in these details. See Pet. 12–13, 14–15, 24. Petitioner also relies on Sinyavskiy’s more detailed disclosures concerning partitioning the network to satisfy limitations [45.1] and [45.6]. Id. at 23–27, 35. Thus, Petitioner has sufficiently identified what is missing in Buibas (a detailed disclosure of partitioning spiking neural networks) and how that missing information is provided by Sinyavskiy (by disclosure of specific techniques for partitioning spiking networks).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,663,474 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00620 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–8, 14–22, and 25 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Tobita obviousness grounds and declining General Plastic denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a relevant technical degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Materials Science, Physics, or the like, and experience in active matrix display design and electroluminescence.” Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 36). Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s proposed definition because it “entails only general ‘circuit design’ experience with no experience in active matrix display design and electroluminescence, the subject matter of the ’593 Patent.” Id. at 17; see also Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 38–39 (Dr. Wolfe’s testimony regarding the same). In particular, Patent Owner argues that “[i]mportant aspects and considerations of the pixel circuit design are unique to the context of active matrix display design and to electroluminescent displays.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 38). Patent Owner additionally notes that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the ITC Investigation adopted Patent Owner’s definition. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2018, 12). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although “[t]he challenged patent pertains generally to the field of OLED displays,” it is directed “more particularly to the circuitry used to drive and control the pixels that comprise the light-generating elements of the display.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 29; see also Ex. 1001, 1:16– 18 (describing the Field of the Invention as relating to “a stage circuit and an organic light emitting display using the same”). Moreover, we note, for example, that claim 1 does not include any limitations directed to “active matrix displays” or any other particular type of display, which suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan need not have had specific experience designing such displays. See Ex. 1001, 9:43–45 (reciting “[a] stage circuit”). In addition, Patent Owner’s proposed definition is imprecise because it does not quantify the amount of experience possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Therefore, at this stage, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because we find it to be more consistent with the teachings of the ’593 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we apply the same construction as the ITC ALJ, i.e., that controlling the voltage of the second node does not require the voltage of the second node to be determined by the first driver alone. This is supported by contrast with another limitation in claim 1, which expressly recites direct control: “the signal of the third input terminal directly controls.” Ex. 1001, 9:58 (emphasis added). This is also supported by a paragraph in the Specification of the ’593 patent explaining that the Specification uses the word “directly” in contexts where the same is intended. Id. at 4:19–26. Further, as noted by the ITC ALJ, the Specification of the ’593 patent states that the second driver “controls the voltage on the first node” where such control is accomplished in conjunction with the outputting unit. Ex. 2018, 31–32 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:60–62, claims 1, 15). This supports the ITC ALJ’s understanding with respect to the first driver, i.e., that control can occur in conjunction with other elements.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Specifically, Petitioner relies on the timing diagram in Figure 21B of Kimura to illustrate the operation of the circuit in Figure 27C. Pet. 19 (reproducing Ex. 1004, Fig. 21B). Petitioner acknowledges that the timing diagram “is not specific to the device of Figure 27C.” Id. Still, Petitioner contends the Figure 27C circuit “would (or at least obviously could) be supplied with input signals in the same manner and with the same timing” because it includes “the same input and output lines and many of the same transistors as Kimura’s other circuits.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–165). According to the timing diagram, the potential of node 13 (V13) is shown at its highest level during period D. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 21B. Petitioner also cites Kimura for teaching that “the potential of the node 13 becomes an H level.” Pet. 18 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 256). Yet Kimura describes the Figure 27C circuit’s operation at period D differently: “[I]n a period D, the potential of the node 13 can be lowered. Therefore, dielectric breakdown or deterioration of the transistor connected to the node 13 (e.g., the transistor 102, the transistor 203, the transistor 205, or the transistor 206) can be prevented.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 286 (emphasis added). And Petitioner cites this very teaching in its analysis of limitation [1-B]. See Pet. 20–21. This inconsistency undermines Petitioner’s argument that “the device of Figure 27C . . . would (or at least obviously could) be supplied with input signals in the same manner and with the same timing.” Id. at 19. In light of this inconsistency, and in the absence of a sufficient explanation as to why Kimura’s teachings about different circuits apply to the Figure 27C circuit on which Petitioner relies, we find Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 to be deficient. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Kimura.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDecided for petitioner
“presents facts that are different from those in General Plastic because Petitioner here did not use a prior Board decision or a prior preliminary response as a roadmap. Given the lack of road-mapping specific to our proceedings, we find that Factor 3 weighs strongly against exercising discretion to deny institution. Further, we note that “factors 1–3 only weigh in favor of discretionary denial when there are ‘road-mapping’ concerns under factor 3 or other concerns under factor 2.” Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00861, Paper 19 at 5 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2022) (precedential) (“Code200”). Although Patent Owner alleges concerns under Factor 2 insofar as Petitioner knew or should have known of the asserted references at the time of the petition in IPR2023-01221 (Prelim. Resp. 9–12; PO Prelim. Sur-reply 2), we find such concerns to be of minimal significance where there is no road-mapping. Thus, we consider Factor 1 in conjunction with Factors 2 and 3 (see Code200 at 5) and find that Factors 1– 3 weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution. Similarly, the timing of the second petition in relation to the filing of the first petition (Factor 4), and when petitioner learned of the prior art (Factor 5), are more pertinent to the situation where the second petition is filed by a party using prior art allegedly newly discovered after receiving the Board’s unfavorable decision, as was the case in General Plastic, or after a preliminary response was filed in the first case. General Plastic at 10. That is not the situation before us here. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 4–9) that the interplay between the instant case and the ITC Investigation implicates the same concerns from General Plastic about abuse or gamesmanship from multiple, staggered petitions. See General Plastic at 16–17. As in Code200, we find that “Patent Owner’s concerns of fairness are outweighed by the benefits to the patent system of improving patent quality by reviewing the merits of the challenges raised in the petitions, which have not been addressed to date.” Code200 at 6. Thus, we determine that Factors 4 and 5 do not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. Regarding Factor 6, Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Board should not expend its finite resources to endorse Petitioner’s second bite at the apple.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Nevertheless, because the earlier proceeding was terminated at Petitioner’s request, the Board has not previously considered the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions, and the Board’s involvement in the parties’ disputes related to the ’593 patent has been minimal up to this juncture. In the absence of meaningful efficiency concerns, we find that Factor 6 does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. For Factor 7, we know of no reason why we could not meet the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination within one year of institution, so we also find that this factor does not weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution. After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, we conclude that the General Plastic factors weigh against exercising our discretion to deny review.” slip op. at 61
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,330,593 - PTAB · Aug 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00495 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 13, 14, and 18–20 for the asserted §103 ground based on Chang and Chang II; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“the need for this second . . . Petition, the Board should decline to expend its finite resources considering it.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Patent Owner argues that “[n]either the substance nor the timing of [Patent Owner]’s claim interpretations justifies this second Petition.” Id. at 6. We disagree and determine that two petitions challenging claims of the ’420 patent are justified under the circumstances presented here. With regard to substance of the claim interpretations and merits of the challenge, the claim interpretations offered in the instant proceeding have no relation to the claims or the merits of the challenges that are the subject of the first Petition. As stated by Petitioner, “[t]he petition in IPR2024-00228 challenges claims 1-12 and 15-17” and “[t]here are no overlapping claims in these petitions.” PET’s Expl. 1. Petitioner argues, “[t]herefore, the petitions present materially different challenges, each to a unique subset of ’420 patent claims.” Id. We agree that, because of the uniqueness of the claim interpretations asserted in this proceeding that are not at all related to any of the claims challenged in the prior Petition or to any of the challenges asserted in the prior Petition, the instant, second Petition is justified.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“89–92. With regard to discretionary denial pursuant to Section 314(a), Petitioner states that it “hereby stipulates that, if the PTAB institutes this inter partes review, Petitioner will not pursue invalidity of the Challenged Claims in a parallel district court proceeding on the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB in this Petition.” Id. at 90. Our analysis under Section 314(a) is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”).5 Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Although Patent Owner cites the Director’s Memo and argues for discretionary denial under Section 314(a), Patent Owner fails to provide any reasoning or explanation as to why we should not follow the guidance of the Director. See Prelim. Resp. 4. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like that in Sotera, we do not discretionarily deny institution under Section 314(a).” slip op. at 11
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Our rule relating to claim construction provides that “[a]ny prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action . . . that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.” 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b). We have considered the District Court’s claim construction Order and Memorandum (Ex. 1080) that was 6 These alterations in original. timely made of record by Petitioner in this proceeding (Paper 11). Based on our independent review of the ’420 claims and specification, we agree with and adopt the reasoning and conclusion of the District Court that claim 13 should be corrected and rewritten as proposed by the Patent Owner and ordered by the District Court. Therefore, we construe claim 13 by twice replacing “hub” with –host— as shown in claim 13 as reproduced above. See Section I.D. (Challenged Claims) supra.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that no additional claim terms require express 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 7 Claim 20 depends indirectly from claim 18 and directly from claim 19. Ex. 1003, 12:42. controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,619,420 - PTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Irwin renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than the patents at issue in PGR2020-00084 and IPR2023- 01235. Challenging claims of different patents significantly distinguishes the facts here from those in General Plastic, and we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to extend General Plastic in this regard. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Weighing the Graham Factors “Once all relevant facts are found, the ultimate legal determination [of obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.” Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the record presently before us, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that Irwin would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–9 and 11–24 of the ’451 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,488,451 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00374 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and all asserted grounds because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“petition for inter partes review. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016). In determining whether to exercise that discretion on behalf of the Director, the Board considers an early trial date in related litigation, among other factors, as part of an assessment of all relevant circumstances of the case—including the merits—to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5. When the same prior art is submitted in district court and to the Board, there are “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Id. at 12. Petitioner can mitigate those concerns by presenting a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“(2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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 discussed below, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in digital video processing, or a related field.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 10035 ¶¶ 76–78). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner uses the same skill level in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 21. We also apply Petitioner’s proposed skill level in this Decision. Pet. 3.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,090,025 - PTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00327 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1 and 2 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Demircin renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the evidence currently of record, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’303 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition based on the parallel district court litigation. Prelim. Resp. 33– 39 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential)). Petitioner, however, presented a Sotera stipulation.8 Pet. 76 (citing Ex. 1029). Thus, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution here. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“3. Preliminary Analysis Regarding Claim 1 At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that the teachings of Demircin satisfy each limitation of claim 1. On the current record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that Demircin does not satisfy the parties’ agreed construction. As cited by Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. 33, 43), Demircin teaches that when additional bandwidth becomes available, NAL units that were previously discarded or only partially transmitted may be transmitted in a delayed manner (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34, 104– 128, Fig. 13, 14). We are currently persuaded that Demircin teaches or reasonably suggests that such delayed NAL units could be received out of order and would be rearranged, as claimed.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,986,303 - PTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00372 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 2–4 and 11 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would show them unpatentable as obvious over Phek, Segall, Martins, and He.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5. When the same prior art is submitted in district court and to the Board, there are “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Id. at 12. Petitioner can mitigate those concerns by presenting a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the Board. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential). Here, Petitioner has presented such a stipulation: if the Board grants institution, Petitioner “agrees not to pursue any grounds raised in the petition, or any grounds [Petitioner] could have reasonably raised in the petition, in [the] district court litigation or any parallel proceeding” Ex. 1028, 1. “Consistent with [Sotera], the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022).5 Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“present arguments specifically directed to the subject matter recited in the rest of the claim. See Prelim. Resp. Even so, Petitioner has the burden to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Thus, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence submitted in connection with the remaining limitations and find them to be sufficient at this stage and on this record. From the current record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in demonstrating that claim 2 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“digital video processing, or a related field.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 10036 ¶¶ 123–125). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner uses the same skill level in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 13. We also apply Petitioner’s proposed skill level in this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner’s arguments, however, are based on an implicit construction for the second resolution converter. See § II.D.5.c supra. For the reasons discussed below, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments and the implicit construction. See id. Apart from rejecting the implicit construction of the second resolution converter, we agree with the parties that no claim term needs to be construed in this Decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,218,995 - PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00229 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Microchip would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“II. ANALYSIS We consider the arguments and evidence of the parties to determine whether Petitioner has met the reasonable likelihood standard for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties agree that a POSITA would have a four year or bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science and professional experience related to USB. Compare Pet. 23–24 with Prelim. Resp. 14. And, the parties also agree that a relevant advanced degree or additional education may take the place of at least some work experience and that work experience may take the place of some formal education. Id. Petitioner contends that a POSITA would have more familiarity with USB related documents and systems than contended by Patent Owner. We need not, and do not, resolve this dispute between the parties at this preliminary stage in this proceeding. We invite the parties to further address this issue, if they deem it necessary and appropriate. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. It appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, at this point, we consider the arguments and evidence from the standpoint of such a skilled artisan. If a POSITA was considered to have the additional work experience with USB systems and familiarity with USB standards as proposed by” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states in the Petition that no terms need construction for this proceeding. Pet. 24–25. Patent Owner states that, at this time, Patent Owner sees no need to construe any claim language. Prelim. Resp. 20. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express 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))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Ex. 1005, 2:60–66. We determine that this contention seems reasonable in view of the market demands acknowledged in the Specification. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“Often it will be necessary for a court to look to . . . the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace . . . to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.”). Petitioner also contends that “modifying Chang to include dual-role ports would further its express goal of ‘easily establishing a connection between a computer and another computer.’” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 3). And, Petitioner relies on the acknowledgement in the ’962 patent that smartphones have become “standalone computing devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 2:44–50). The Petition states: [A] POSITA would have been motivated to include dual-role port(s) to further Chang’s goal of connecting the upstream computer to the downstream phone acting as a computer. Welch, ¶178. Specifically, dual-role ports would allow consumer products, such as smartphones, that operate as computers (in host mode) to “easily establish[] a connection” (EX1014, [0005]) to the upstream host; the smartphone would plug into the dual-role port and automatically connect to the upstream host (through the bridge) when the smart phone switches to host mode . . . without requiring the user to switch between dedicated host- and device-ports. Welch, ¶¶178-179. Pet. 35–36. According to Petitioner with supporting testimony of its declarant, “[t]his avoids the inconvenience, hassle, and confusion of consumers having to keep track of (1) what mode their phone is operating in and (2) what mode(s) are supported by individual hub ports.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1013 (Welch Decl.) ¶ 179). Here again, we determine that this reasoning provides rational underpinning, supported by evidence, that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the USB hub module of Chang to include dual-role ports as described in Chang II.” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,645,962 - PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00230 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claim 1 under both asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Chang and Chang II, alone or with Chutorash, render the claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2023). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claim of the ’072 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claim. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition for one of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 13. This proposed definition is consistent with the ’072 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below. During trial, and in accordance with our Rules, the parties should address what substantive effect, if any, different proposed definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art have on analyzing what the prior art teaches or in otherwise evaluating unpatentability of the challenged claim.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Because the Petition was filed after November 13, 2018, we apply the same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340–41, 51,343 (Oct. 11, 2018). In applying such standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). physically embedded in a vehicle.” See Pet. 27–28. Patent Owner does not disagree with this proposed construction, but argues that we do not need to construe this term, or any other, for purposes of institution. Prelim. Resp. 19. We agree with Patent Owner. Thus, for purposes of our Decision on Institution, we do provide an express construction of any term. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). And we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. A final determination as to claim construction will be made at the close of the proceeding, based on all the arguments and evidence of record.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“dual-role port and a Mux to route the port to the appropriate transmission path. At this stage, we agree with Petitioner and find that it would have been obvious to substitute Chang II’s dual-role port for Chang’s port 50, as well as to include Chang II’s switching. Pet. 42–44, 64–65; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 184– 185. In particular, we find persuasive Mr. Welch’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ dual-role mode ports instead because employing dedicated ports requires having “‘multiple connectors, multiple [application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)] pins and the like,’ which adds ‘overhead’ and ‘increase[s] the cost[s].’” Ex. 1013 ¶ 177 (quoting Ex. 1025,19 1:36–43) (second and third alterations in original). 19 US 8,683,085 B1, issued Mar. 25, 2014 (Ex. 1025, “Castleberry”). Chang II’s dual-role port for Chang’s port 50 “avoids the inconvenience, hassle, and confusion of consumers having to keep track of (1) what mode their phone is operating in and (2) what mode(s) are supported by individual hub ports.” Id. ¶ 179; Pet. 44. As Mr. Welch testifies, “[w]ith a dual-role port, the user would not have to know what mode the smartphone was operating in, and then switch the smartphone between the appropriate dedicated host or device port.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 179. At this stage, we find that this rationale also provides sufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a dual-role port in lieu of host port 50. In addition, at this stage, we agree with Petitioner that “in view of a dual-role mode USB port, it would have been obvious to include ‘USB multiplexing switches connected to the USB port, the USB hub, and the USB bridge’ to route the downstream USB product to the appropriate path.” Pet. 62 (emphases omitted). This is consistent with Chang II’s teachings, which require such switching. E.g., 1015 ¶¶ 11, 21. In other words, to realize the benefits of the rationales for using dual-role ports in Chang, one of ordinary skill in the art would have included a switch to route the downstream port to the appropriate path. See Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 184–185. In addition, we agree with Petitioner and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in modifying Chang to include dual-role ports and switching. Pet. 44. As we discuss above, dual-role ports, host/device detection, and multiplexing switches were already well-known.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,176,072
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.