• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2024-01026 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 5–8 and 16–19 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’304 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 5–8 and 16–19 of the ’304 patent on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

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

    “On the present record, we determine that no explicit construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this case. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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)). The parties are ordered to propose and support a specific plain meaning or other construction of the “independent authentication” limitation in their briefs, with reference to the following claim language: 5[a] receiving, at a second conditional access client of the second conditional access server, an authentication through a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses the second root of trust for the second security domain which is independent of and different than the first root of trust. The parties are ordered to analyze the relevant claim language, and cite to the specification and prosecution history in support of their claim construction where applicable. The parties are further ordered to address the question of whether an “independent” “second authentication process” and “second root of trust” requires a conditional access server that manages a secondary subscriber management system where a “client” of the conditional access server does not subscribe to the primary subscriber management system. See Ex. 1001, 8:3–38 (e.g., “authentication methods used by the secondary CA server in the secondary subscriber management system are independent from those used by the primary CA server”).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSA. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of institution, which the prior art of record supports. 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” slip op. at 7

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

    “Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” American Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). “[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). We conclude that, at this stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence and argument to establish a reasonable likelihood that Russ anticipates the challenged claims of the ’304 patent.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,667,304
• ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2024 · IPR2024-01024 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 48–50, 57, 82–84, 91, 116–118, 125, and 140–142; the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Russ, but not obviousness over Russ.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” American Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). “[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). We conclude that, at this stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence and argument to establish a reasonable likelihood that Russ anticipates the challenged claims of the ’236 patent.” slip op. at 11

  • Parallel petitionsOther

    “5 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set forth constructions for claim language invoking § 112 ¶ 6.” Id. at 1–2 (citing Consol. Tr. Pr. Guide, 59–61). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s Notice. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and decline to exercise our discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(c). 6 Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner does not show that Dr. Wasilewski “qualifies as a POSITA,” his physics degree, background, and experience, in systems involving multi-media content distribution and management and/or related fields, including as an inventor of over 50 patents in fields that include encryption, MPEG systems, and transfer of digital content, including Russ (Ex. 1005), along with extensive engineering experience in related fields, is more than adequate on this preliminary record to qualify Dr. Wasilewski as an artisan of ordinary skill. Compare Prelim. Resp. 5, with Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19 and Ex. 1004.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be 5 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set forth constructions for claim language invoking § 112 ¶ 6.” Id. at 1–2 (citing Consol. Tr. Pr. Guide, 59–61). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s Notice. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and decline to exercise our discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(c). 6 Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner does not show that Dr. Wasilewski “qualifies as a POSITA,” his physics degree, background, and experience, in systems involving multi-media content distribution and management and/or related fields, including as an inventor of over 50 patents in fields that include encryption, MPEG systems, and transfer of digital content, including Russ (Ex. 1005), along with extensive engineering experience in related fields, is more than adequate on this preliminary record to qualify Dr. Wasilewski as an artisan of ordinary skill. Compare Prelim. Resp. 5, with Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19 and Ex. 1004. considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSA. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of institution, which the prior art of record supports. 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).” slip op. at 7

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

    “On the present record, we determine that no explicit construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this case. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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)). The parties are ordered to propose and support a specific plain meaning or other construction of the “independent authentication” limitation in their briefs, with reference to the following claim language: 140[c.ii] the conditional access server authenticates clients of the conditional access server through a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust. The parties are ordered to analyze the relevant claim language, and cite to the specification and prosecution history in support of their claim construction where applicable, including the language of counterpart “independent authentication” limitations recited in claims 48, 82, and 116 if there are material differences. The parties are further ordered to address the question of whether an “independent” “second authentication process” and “second root of trust” requires a conditional access server that manages a secondary subscriber management system where a “client” of the conditional access server does not subscribe to the primary subscriber management system. See Ex. 1001, 8:3–38 (e.g., “authentication methods used by the secondary CA server in the secondary subscriber management system are independent from those used by the primary CA server”).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,236
• Mianyang Boe Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. / Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Company, Ltd.Instituted
  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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,330,593
• Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00459 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 10–31 are unpatentable under §103 over the asserted combinations involving Chandra or Keohane.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and . . . at least two years’ practical experience with computer networking and computer security.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner asserts that its positions would be the same under either proposal. Id. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as more consistent with the prior art and the ’825 patent, but our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 8

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

    “claims 1, 15, 21, and 27 recite methods in which a first network security appliance of a CSF receives network traffic to inspect, determines whether the traffic was transmitted from a second network security appliance that executed security operations on the traffic, determines network security operations for the first network security appliance to execute based on any security operations executed by the second network security appliance, and executes operations on the traffic. Ex. 1001, 10:58–11:17, 12:31–60, 13:20– 47, 14:13–37. As claimed, network traffic may travel in one direction from a second network security appliance to a first network security appliance. The ’825 patent describes unidirectional traffic as “one embodiment” of the CSF. A first network security appliance receives incoming network traffic and determines if the incoming network traffic is transmitted from a second network security appliance based on the source address of the traffic and determines operations that the second network security appliance executed. Ex. 1001, 2:48–56. In this embodiment, traffic travels in a single incoming direction between network security appliances. Tr. 30:22–31:18. The ’825 patent also describes the “cooperation” in a CSF as “[t]he network packet carrying the flag is transmitted to another member node at the next hop.” Ex. 1001, 6:28–34 (emphasis added); id. at 8:3–8. Traffic always flows from one hop to a next hop along the same path between root 220 at the edge of the network and each particular endpoint (leaf) shown in Figure 2 below. Traffic does not flow along different interconnected paths when it travels from root 220 to an endpoint leaf 240a–240d, 250 as Patent Owner asserts is required of a CSF. PO Resp. 13–15. Figure 2 is “an exemplary topology of a cooperative security fabric (CSF)” with Patent Owner’s annotation of network traffic paths. Ex. 1001, 2:29–31; PO Resp. 16. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to branch 230a to leaf 240a to the blue end node. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to leaf 250 to the red end node. Traffic from the green node travels along a single path to leaf 240d to branch 230b to root 220. Network security appliances only cooperate along a single red, green,” slip op. at 10

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

    “(3) Analysis We agree with Petitioner that “the claims only require two appliances and traffic to go from one appliance to the other.” Reply 11. Nothing in the claims or element 1[a] requires network traffic to originate from outside the private network or the CSF. Dr. Black testifies that the background of the ’825 patent describes a need for a CSF to coordinate operations performed on network traffic that is “transmitted to/from the network” to avoid or reduce redundant operations among members of the CSF” (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 44, 50), but Dr. Black describes the claimed network fabric and CSF entirely in the context of controlling network traffic transmitted within the enterprise network topology 200 as illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’825 patent (id. ¶ 52), which we discussed in Section II.B.1. supra and reproduce again below. In Figure 2, Patent Owner annotates paths taken by network traffic within network topology 200 comprising root 220, branches 230a, 230b, and leaves 240a–d, 250 within network 200. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 52. In addition, Chandra’s network 102 is “a collection of individual networks, interconnected with each other and functioning as a single large network.”7 Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. Network 102 can include LANs, WANs, and/or MANs. Id. As a result, network devices 104 located in different networks of network 102 transmit to one another via edge network links 218 within this internetwork of networks 102. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 21–30, Figs. 1, 2; Pet. 22–26. Transmitting and receiving CEs 208, 214 are security-based devices at the edges of different networks in network 102 to control incoming network traffic sent between transmitting and receiving network devices 206, 212 located in different networks. Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. A plurality of CEs can be associated with a single PE to receive incoming network traffic from a transmitting CE. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Thus, network traffic is transmitted from network devices 104 connected to a plurality of CEs that connect to other CEs via edge network link 218 and to other network devices 104 connected to those CEs “along multiple interconnected paths” (see id. ¶¶ 28–30) that satisfies Patent Owner’s definition of CSF (PO Resp. 13). The sending and receiving CEs “constitute multiple cooperating network security appliances” contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 38), as do CEs 208, 214.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Buruganahalli’s topology of devices 50, 52, 54 coordinates security operations that they perform on network data 58 sent from network device 54 to network device 52 to network device 50 from one hop to the next hop. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30–32, 34–36, 38–40, 46–48, Fig. 3. We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to update Chandra’s metadata tag for a multi-CE path to indicate actions taken, as Buruganahalli teaches, to reduce latency and resource waste. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28)). Dr. Franz testifies it would have been obvious to arrange Chandra’s different network security appliance CEs in series so that traffic passed through multiple CEs that performed different security functions in a CSF before reaching a receiving PE, as Chandra and Buruganahalli teach or suggest. Ex. 1019 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125). Patent Owner’s argument that the CEs are not in series does not address Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to place them in series, as Buruganahalli discloses, to perform different security operations on network traffic. Pet. 54; Ex. 1019 ¶ 60; Cf. Sur-reply 20–21. Petitioner contends that Chandra’s system also transmits data packets with updated labels to devices in an extended virtual private network (VPN) shown in Figure 8. Pet. 54. Petitioner asserts it was well known to connect a private network of a remote company site to another network such as an enterprise network using a VPN tunnel, and it would have been obvious to attach the VPN in Figure 8 to a private network as an extension of Figure 2’s private network. Pet. 54–56. Petitioner contends that, in such instances, a receiving CE would transmit data packets with the updated label to a receiving device in an extended network using the transmitting and receiving end configurations shown in Figures 2 and 8 of Chandra. Id. at 54. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to connect Chandra’s Figure 2 private network to Chandra’s Figure 8 VPN network to extend enterprise network communications so the next device in the extended VPN network would be “a next network appliance participating in the CSF” as claimed. Pet. 54–56; Reply 26–27 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 61). We also agree with Dr. Franz who testifies: Contrary to the PO’s assertion that “Petitioner…provides no rationale for why a POSITA would modify Chandra by combining Figures 2 and 8, or explain why a POSITA would reasonably expect it to succeed (POR, 45),” I provided ample reasons why a POSITA would have found it obvious that the VPN in Chandra’s Figure 8 could be attached as an extension to the private network in Chandra’s Figure 2 as illustrated below. In fact, I provided an example of a widely circulated official publication by the U.S. National Security Agency containing a reference architecture that recommended cascading multiple VPN solutions for added security. (Franz. Decl. ¶126-130.) Ex. 1019 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–130).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,084,825 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,084,825
• 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Dental Imaging Technologies CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00549 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’798 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’798 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’798 patent would have at least (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent course work) and two to three years of work experience in 3D imaging and modeling of physical structures, or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent course work) with a focus in 3D imaging and modeling of physical structures. 4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0062701 A1, published Mar. 15, 2012 (Ex. 1010) (“Dillon”). 5 A. Johnson, “Spin-images: A Representation for 3-D Surface Matching,” Ph.D. Dissertation, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, August 1997 (Ex. 1011) (“Johnson”). Pet. 7–8 (emphasis added). Patent Owner counters that a POSITA at the time of the invention of the ’798 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least two years of work experience, or alternatively, at least five years of comparable industry experience in the field of imaging and/or image scanning including 3D imaging systems and 3D modeling techniques. Additional education reduces the threshold for years of experience in the field, and vice versa. Prelim. Resp. 5 For purposes of this Decision, the level of ordinary skill in the art is” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner notes there are proposed constructions of terms in the related litigation, including constructions for “‘contiguous scan’” and “‘occlusal surface.’” Pet. 8–9. Here, Petitioner further contends that the term “‘occlusal surface’” means “‘the biting surface of a patient’s teeth’” and that “‘contiguous scan’” means “‘a scan of an/the occlusal surface made in a single, uninterrupted motion of the scanning wand.’” Id. at 8. Nonetheless, Petitioner contends also that “resolution of this Petition does not depend on which constructions are used because these features of the claims are disclosed by the prior art regardless of the construction.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner disagrees that no claim terms need construction. Prelim. Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner, “3Shape has not adequately addressed how numerous elements of the challenged claims are disclosed or suggested by the prior art under 3Shape’s proposed construction of the phrase ‘contiguous scan of an occlusal surface.’” Id. Based on our review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, no construction is necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. 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

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “As described, we understand Babayoff to teach that data entities IS′1, IS′2, . . . IS′n are stitched together after identifying and removing soft tissue data from the unstitched data sub-entities. Our understanding of Babayoff is consistent with Figure 15, where Babayoff teaches that the entities IS1, IS2, . . . ISn) are provided in step 1210 “to be stitched,” but are not stitched until step 1240. Ex. 1008, Fig. 15. Babayoff further discloses that the images are stitched together after soft tissue identification and/or removal: [i]n the next step 1230 of the method, the modified entities (IS'1, IS'2, ... IS'n) are then manipulated in a similar manner in which the original entities (I1, I2, ... In.) are manipulated in the prior art, mutatis mutandis, to register and then stitch the various modified entities (IS'1, IS'2, ... IS'n) together to provide a composite entity I’ that comprises the data points corresponding at least to the hard tissues. Id. at 24:41–47 (emphases added). As such, in Babayoff, the soft tissue is removed prior to stitching and generating the composite entity I’. Babayoff further teaches that “[b]y eliminating the data associated with the soft tissues, and proceeding with stitching only the hard tissues using the color data, the quality of the stitching procedure is significantly better than when using the full intra-oral data for the stitching procedure.” Id. at 5:12–16 (emphases added). Given at least this disclosure, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how Zhang combined with Babayoff discloses claim limitations [1.3], [1.9], [1.10], and [1.11]. More specifically, Petitioner relies upon Babayoff to disclose the removal of soft tissue data from the generated contiguous scan, but does not explain how Babayoff teaches this removal from the contiguous scan that has been generated by stitching images together prior to soft tissue data removal.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,234,798
• 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Dental Imaging Technologies CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00548 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that the cited art taught multiple successful bite registrations, as required by challenged claims 1–21.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny Petitioner’s request to institute inter partes review of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 2

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

    “As the Federal Circuit has noted, it is not within our statutory authority to determine questions of indefiniteness of issued claims within a inter partes review proceeding. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng'g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2020). As such, we make no findings as to any alleged indefiniteness. The Federal Circuit, however, also has stated that “[t]he indefiniteness of a limitation (here, a means-plus-function limitation) precludes a patentability determination only when the indefiniteness renders it logically impossible for the Board to reach such a decision.” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 813 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (emphasis added). Here, we are presented with a circumstance in which our determinations in this proceeding are not precluded by the allegations of indefiniteness. Thus, we will not deny the Petition based on Petitioner’s failure to identity corresponding structure for the purported means-plus-function terms of claim 13. Further, based on the record before us, we see no need for express construction of any term at this stage of the proceeding. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

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

    “D. Asserted Obviousness Each of the independent claims, 1, 13, 18, 20, and 21, recite, in relevant part, obtaining at least two successful bite registrations corresponding to different displayed bite surfaces. Ex. 1001, 9:50–52 (claim 1), 11:13–15 (claim 13), 12:5–6 (claim 18), 12:31–32 (claim 20), 12:53–55 (claim 21). Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that “[b]y its plain language, this limitation requires obtaining multiple successful bite registrations.” Prelim. Resp. 20. In each of the asserted grounds, Petitioner relies on Sommer alone or with Malfliet to teach this limitation in each of the independent claims. Pet. 19–20 (claim 1), 55 (claim 13), 58 (claim 18), 63 (claim 20), 37 (claim 21). We are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the art teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent course work) and two to three years of work experience in 3D imaging and modeling of physical structures, or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent course work) with a focus in 3D imaging and modeling of physical structures. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 32–33). Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least two years of work experience, or alternatively, at least five years of comparable industry experience in the field of imaging and/or image scanning, including 3D imaging systems and 3D modeling techniques.” Prelim. Resp. 5. Patent Owner adds that “[a]dditional education reduces the threshold for years of experience in the field, and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, the level of ordinary skill in the art is not dispositive and our determination would be the same under either party’s proposal. See Prelim. Resp. 5 (“Patent Owner’s arguments herein apply regardless of which definition of a POSITA is adopted.”). Nonetheless, we note that Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the prior art, and is further supported by Dr. Saber’s testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶ 33; see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,391
• Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00458 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 are unpatentable under § 103 over the five asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 (2020) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 of the ’678 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a B.S. in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, with at least two years’ experience in computer networking/security.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 16–17 (the positions in the PO Response would be the same under either parties’ proposal). The parties’ proposals are substantially the same. Our decision and analysis would be the same under either party’s proposal.” slip op. at 6

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

    “c. Analysis The ’678 patent describes storage containers as “directories, directory structures, web directories, folders, . . . files and namespaces of the same.” Id. at 6:44–47; id. at 10:12–15. However, it discloses that data is “stored in the namespaces, directories, folders, files or other storage containers of one or more cloud platforms,” which seems to equate namespaces with storage containers. Id. at 9:23–25. In claim 6, “the step of configuring the namespaces comprises storing content of the file as filenames.” Id. at 20:20–22. One definition of “namespace” is a “grouping of one or more names that represent individual objects within the group in a shared computing environment, such as a network.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition 130 (Microsoft Press 2002) (Ex. 3001). “The names within a namespace are unique, are created according to the same rules, and can be resolved into a particular identifying item of information, such as an IP address or a network device.” Ex. 3001.” slip op. at 7

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

    “set of names available for naming things.’” Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 101; Ex. 1014 (Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms)); Tr. 5:18–20, 7:21– 8:1. This definition is consistent with the extrinsic evidence cited above. Patent Owner largely agrees with this proposed definition. Dr. Black testifies that “to the extent a namespace is applied to object identifiers, it will define the set of allowable identifiers within a particular context.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 69 (cited in PO Resp. 19). Dr. Black agrees with Dr. Lee’s testimony “that a directory named ‘documents’ is a namespace for the files within that directory––within that ‘documents’ namespace, files can be identified by simply referring to the file name, such as ‘foo.’” Id. ¶ 68. Patent Owner however, asserts that “a name itself (such as an identifier that identifies an object) is not a namespace.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner asserts that the ’678 patent provides “an example of creating a namespace for file chunks as part of the encryption process” as “each chunk can be encrypted based on public and private/secret keys defined by the encryption module 210” “where keys are managed based on user-assigned policies.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]hese policies therefore create a namespace that defines the naming convention for the file chunks (e.g. encryption based on a particular key).” Id. Patent Owner asserts that “storing the file chunks in a folder creates a namespace scope for the file chunks” and namespaces are configured by storing file content as file names. Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71); see Tr. 8:5–11, 11:2–12:11. d. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “namespace” as “a set of names available for naming things.” Consistent with various exemplary embodiments described in the ’678 patent, the set of names available for naming things may be based on a policy that defines the naming convention for files or file chunks, and a namespace may be created by storing files or file chunks in a folder to create a namespace scope for the files or file chunks.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 9,280,678 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,280,678
• Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 17–21 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Houston and Garcia render at least one challenged claim obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Thus, Patent Owner has shown that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Turning to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. As Petitioner argues, there is no evidence that the references in question were meaningfully addressed during the prosecution of the ’520 patent — there was no evaluation of the art or articulation regarding any arguments applying that art. Pet. 11. We note that the IPR petitions were submitted only after the prosecution came to a purported end with an Issue Notification — submission of the petitions briefly postponed issuance, but resulted in no further substantive actions other than a later issuance.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Accordingly, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s specific arguments directed to claim requirement 17[e], and its arguments discussed above generally relating to all of Petitioner’s grounds, for the reasons discussed above, for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that the record sufficiently supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirements 17[e] and 17[f]. d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 17 Based on our analysis set forth above, including our analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations of nonobviousness, we determine, on the current record and for purposes of this Decision, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 45

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’520 patent (September 22, 2012): would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field and two or more years of experience in a related field such as networked computer systems using Internet protocols. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Pet. 40–41; Ex. 2045. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument, that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared, is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the email and folder interface teachings of Garcia to modify Houston. Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 84–93, 102–104, 148, 151–152. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,611,520
• Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2022-00734 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 25, 26, and 34 unpatentable as obvious over Heller and Quam, and over Heller, Quam, and Deaton.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “After our Final Written Decision (Paper 41) found no challenged claims unpatentable, the Director vacated our Decision and remanded the case back to the Board. Paper 43. With our authorization, Petitioner and Patent Owner filed Briefs on Remand. Paper 45 (“Pet. Remand Br.”), Paper 48 (“PO Remand Br.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final Written Decision issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons we discuss below, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the ’737 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience related to computerized image analysis and three-dimensional modeling.” Pet. 4–5. 1 Because the parties agree that the challenged claims of the challenged patent have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, we apply the pre- AIA (“America Invents Act”) version of § 103. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011). 2 Heller, “The Site-Model Construction Component of the RADIUS Testbed System,” in Proceedings: ARPA Image Understanding Workshop (1997) (Ex. 1004, “Heller”). 3 Quam, “The Radius Common Development Environment,” in RADIUS: Image Understanding for Imagery Intelligence (1997) (Ex. 1005, “Quam”). 4 U.S. 2006/0235611 A1, Pub. Oct. 19, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Deaton”). Further, “education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Id. at 5. Patent Owner does not provide a formulation for a person of ordinary skill. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 5

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “this limitation should be interpreted broadly enough to encompass transmitting roof measurement information between components of the same computer system,” Pet. 11, whereas Patent Owner contends this limitation requires “transmitting the roof measurement information outside the roof estimate report system . . . such as to third-party systems.” PO Resp. 18. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s construction. As we explained in IPR2016-00592, “[t]he claim term at issue requires only ‘transmit[ting]’ roof measurement information—it does not specify any particular source or destination for the transmission.” Ex. 1010, 20. In addition, the ’737 patent’s specification states that “the roof [report] generation engine 813 may transmit roof measurement information” and “some portion of the contents . . . of the [Roof Estimation System] 810,” which includes roof report generation engine 813, “may be stored on and/or transmitted over the other computer readable media 805.” Ex. 1001, 17:16–17, 16:13–17 (emphasis added), Fig. 8. Thus, because the ’737 patent’s specification expressly recognizes transmitting roof-estimate content between components of the same computer system, we maintain our construction from IPR2016-00592— that “transmission” includes transmission within the same system. See Ex. 1010, 20.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “The at-issue language appears in preambles, which as a general rule are not limiting unless they are “necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because claims 16 and 26 describe structurally complete inventions without their preambles, we find the preambles not limiting. In addition, even if the preambles were limiting, the Petition’s analysis, along with Dr. Forsyth’s supporting declaration, plainly indicate that the Heller-Quam RADIUS system includes these generic computing features because RADIUS is a software platform executed by a processor on a computer that utilizes memory. See, e.g., Pet. 20 (explaining that RADIUS is a “workstation-based image processing system,” that “runs on both SunMicrosystems and Silicon Graphics RISC-based workstations,” “utilizes ‘memory,’” and “comprises over 200,000 lines [of code]”); see also Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 36, 38–40. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the Heller-Quam system teaches the preambles in claims 16 and 26.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,135,737 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,135,737
• Datavant, Inc. v. Vigilytics LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00381 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition challenges after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). 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). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 in the ’012 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner asserts 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, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the field of computer science, focusing on data privacy, computer networking, and/or data records management.” Pet. 8. Petitioner also asserts that “[s]uperior education could compensate for less work experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Clark’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 23. Based on the current record and for purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’012 patent as well as the asserted references.” slip op. at 13

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

    “[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor 4 For Exhibit 1010 (Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim Construction Brief), we cite to the page numbers of the brief rather than the header page numbers. Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “Alleged Reason to Combine the Teachings of the References Petitioner identifies a reason that would have prompted an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine Murphy’s teachings with Evenhaim’s teachings in the way Petitioner proposes, i.e., to provide “additional details about how to beneficially implement statistical de-identification.” See Pet. 15–16. Further, Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a “reasonable expectation of success” in combining the teachings of the references. Id. at 16. Dr. Clark’s testimony supports Petitioner’s positions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–70. For instance, Dr. Clark testifies that Murphy describes “measures [that] would prevent a search for a single subject in Evenhaim to result in the identification of the subject’s medical records” and, therefore, “reduc[e] the risk of a HIPAA violation.” Id. ¶ 68. According to Dr. Clark, Murphy does so by recommending: (1) “at least a minimum amount of de-identified medical data (i.e., multiple patient records) such that the query complies with the HIPAA statistical requirements”; and (2) “maintaining a log of queries to ensure that a user does not repeatedly submit a query that returns the same number of results multiple times within a defined time period.” Id. Based on the current record, Petitioner establishes sufficiently that an” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,886,012

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.