- PTAB · Sep 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00609 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“action is a factor that may weigh in favor of denying a petition under § 314(a). See NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 58 & n.2, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“Trial Practice Guide”). We consider the following factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). In evaluating these factors, we “take[] a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner proposes a slightly different formulation of the level of skill in the art, namely, that a POSITA “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, materials science, chemical engineering, or an equivalent field, and such a person would have at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in nucleation and epitaxial growth processes, or other comparable industry experience,” where “[t]his level of skill is approximate and more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 7. Nevertheless, Patent Owner asserts that “the result here does not depend on which of the two articulations that the Board chooses.” Id. at 8. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal because we find Patent Owner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art adequate and supported on this record. The level of ordinary skill in the art also appears to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We also note that the outcome of this Decision would be the same under Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. The plain language of claim 1 does not recite any limitation regarding whether or not a group III/II reactant must continue to flow or must stop after the pretreatment step. Claim step [1b] simply recites “pre-treating a surface of the substrate with at least one group III reactant or at least one group II reactant at an elevated growth temperature prior to introducing a group V reactant or a group VI reactant.” Claim steps [1c] and [1d] simply recite “introducing a group V reactant or a group VI reactant to grow a nucleation layer on the surface of the substrate” ([1c]) and “growing a buffer layer on said nucleation layer, said buffer layer providing a surface upon which said epitaxial layer is grown” ([1d]). None of these steps contain any language either requiring or prohibiting the flow of the at least one group III/II reactant recited in step [1b]. Similarly, none of the cited portions of the Specification requires that at least one of the group III/II reactant must continue to flow after the pretreatment steps.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’360 patent. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’360 patent on all grounds asserted in the Petition. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating that a decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,250,360 - PTAB · Jul 31, 2024 · IPR2024-00222 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–23, and 25–33 on all petition grounds because Chen showed a reasonable likelihood of anticipating claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“21 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 26)). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded that, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of succeeding in its anticipation challenge to claim 1 based on Chen.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Specifically, Petitioner asserts Chen’s lithium battery teaches the claimed battery pack, Chen’s USB outputs 8, 9, and 10 teach claim 1’s first-current output port, and Chen’s high-current, car-battery output unit 11 teaches claim 1’s pair of output terminals capable of starting a vehicle. Id. at 13–20. Further, Petitioner corresponds Chen’s “electronics of ‘U3B and D12’” that “form ‘an output power limit control’” to the claimed first protection circuit (Id. at 20 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 26)) and Chen’s relay K1 that “is automatically turned off to prevent long-term high-current output” to the claimed second protection circuit configured to prevent overcurrent (Id. at 21 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 26)). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the underlying evidence cited in support and are persuaded that, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of succeeding in its anticipation challenge to claim 1 based on Chen.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner asserts “that no claim elements need a formal construction.” Pet. 10. We agree that we need not construe any claim limitations to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a Bachelor’s of Science in electrical engineering or physics and at least two years of experience in circuit design for portable electronics.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 17). For the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,643,506 - Shenzen Chic Electrics Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc.Adverse judgmentPTAB · Jul 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00810 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–30 after it disclaimed the entire term of the patent.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“The Board construes the disclaimer of a patent as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(1) (“Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [d]isclaimer of the involved . . . patent.”). In this case, the Board instituted trial on claims 1–30 of the ’971 patent, and Patent Owner subsequently filed a disclaimer of the entire term of the ’971 Patent. Ex. 2002. Accordingly, we construe Patent Owner’s disclaimer as a request for adverse judgment, and we grant that request.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,376,971 - PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“because they are premised on a misapplication of our precedent. Providing a document to the Office in an Information Disclosure Statement is sufficient to satisfy AB prong one as long as that “previously presented” art is “the same or substantially the same” as that presented in the Petition. See Advanced Bionics, 7–8 (holding that “[p]reviously presented art includes . . . art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent”). As we have already found, there are no material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination under BD factor (a). Petitioner provides no authority that requires us to interpret “involved during examination” under BD factor (a) as “used in a rejection” or “mentioned by the examiner” (Pet. 60), and we are aware of none. Patent Owner’s position, in that regard, appears to conflate the first AB prong (whether the art previously was presented to the Office) with an aspect of the second AB prong (the extent to which the Examiner considered that art).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). The findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision are provided for the exclusive purpose of explaining our determination that Petitioner has met that standard on this record. slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29). Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp., generally. On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. To the extent a more specific definition is required, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed unchallenged definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that the claimed term “aryl” should be construed to mean “an aromatic ring system.” See Pet. 20–23. Patent Owner does not propose a different claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp., generally. After review of the preliminary record, we determine that no claim terms need to be construed for purposes of institution. See 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.’”).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,041,087 - The Noco Company, Inc. v. Pilot, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00167 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable; the Board finds the asserted § 103 grounds proven for each claim and dismisses the collateral-estoppel motion as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but 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). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- 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 Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for proving unpatentability. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“A patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373 (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “[I]f the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Coextensive “mean[s] that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed’. . . . A product is ‘essentially the claimed invention when, for example, the unclaimed features amount to nothing more than additional insignificant features.’” Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (emphasis and citation omitted).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reason to modify Richardson’s jump starter with Lai’s overcharge-protection circuit. Pet. 69. In particular, Petitioner shows that in order to protect against dangerous overcharging conditions in Richardson’s jump starter, a person of ordinary skill would have replaced diode 35 in Richardson with a switched overcharge-protection circuit, as taught by Lai, with the predictable result of cutting off recharging of jump starter batteries 22 from vehicle battery 28 in the event an over voltage protection threshold is crossed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 174. Patent Owner’s argument that Richardson teaches away is not persuasive. Richardson’s teaching of recharging techniques supports the combination with Lai, rather than teaches away, because a system such as Richardson’s that permits recharging would have a need for safety protection and excessive recharging prevention. Further, claim 11 does not require preventing recharging in every situation, but rather only prevents recharging of “a normal voltage of the battery.” Ex. 1001, 6:11–12. In any event, Richardson does not criticize, discredit or discourage investigation into preventing recharging. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 11,235,673 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,235,673 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00222 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–3, 6–23, and 25–33 based on abandonment of the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Petition (Paper 2), requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–23, and 25–33 of U.S. Patent No. 9,643,506 (Ex. 1001, “the ’506 patent”). Shenzhen Carku Technology Co. (“Patent Owner”) did not file mandatory notices despite its obligation to do so under our rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b). In addition, the Board emailed the attorney of record listed on the ’506 patent as well as the attorney listed in the Petition’s certificate of service, but has not received any response. See Ex. 1003. Pursuant to our rules, “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [a]bandonment of the contest.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Patent Owner’s failure to file mandatory notices and its failure to respond to the Board’s email is consistent with abandonment of the contest. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner as to claims 1–3, 6–23, and 25–33 of the ’506 patent; and” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,643,506 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionGranted
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46
- ExcludeOther
“We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00073 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under §103: the Board found the asserted combinations taught the limitations, with motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The claim language, “forming” an “adhesion layer on a back surface,” suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of the claims of the ʼ879 patent does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a preformed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 21–23 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’879 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’879 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Mostafazadeh, could overflow.” PO Resp. 41, 42 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 121). According to Patent Owner, the downward pressure during mounting “could cause adhesive to squeeze out.” Id. at 41. We find that Patent Owner’s argument and the corresponding testimony of Mr. Elenius are speculative and do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness. The overflow issue was recognized and addressed by Mostafazadeh. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Mostafazadeh provides explicitly that its adhesive layer “covers an entire mounting surface 190 of the selected integrated circuit dies 182 and does not extend beyond a boundary of the mounting surface 190.” Ex. 1003, 10:6–9 (emphasis added). Additionally, Mostafazadeh teaches that when “the adhesive layer is rolled on, it is exactly the same size as the mounting surface and is quite even. Thus, when the die is attached to its supporting surface the adhesive does not extend beyond the mounting surface of the die.” Id. at 9:15–18. Further, Mostafazadeh teaches that its process avoids the adhesive jutting around the edges of the die. Id. at 2:26–28. These teachings support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully applying Mostafazadeh’s die attachment method to Ball’s multichip device while avoiding adhesive overflow. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination would fail” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond connections with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 25–28. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,352,879 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,352,879 - PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00084 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been shown obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’484 patent, and we institute inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Guidance Memo 3 (footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). The Guidance Memo explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB. . . . and allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8. Here, in an email to Patent Owner, Petitioner “stipulates that if the PTAB institutes IPR, Structural Wrap will not pursue in [the Florida Litigation] the same grounds asserted in the petition, or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Ex. 1022, 1.” slip op. at 12
- Adverse judgmentDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because the cited discussion in the prosecution history does not relate to the challenged claims in this proceeding. Pages 25–26 of Exhibit 2008 correspond to the Declaration of Christopher Mouriz (“Mouriz Declaration”). The Mouriz Declaration relates to claim language that “recites attaching the construction material to a specific component of a roof, namely, the vertical, outward facing [fascias] of the eaves of the roof.” Ex. 2008, 25 ¶ 7. The Mouriz Declaration explains that “the roof component to which a waterproofing membrane is attached is not recognized as a particular parameter that can be experimented with, in order to increase or optimize the waterproofing process in a structural waterproofing system.” Id. at 26 ¶ 8. Thus, the claim language discussed in the Mouriz Declaration relates to attaching construction material specifically to “vertical, outward facing facias of the eaves of the roof.” Id. at 25 ¶ 7. There is no discussion of wrapping battens. Pages 40–41 of Exhibit 2008 correspond to a Response to Office Action wherein the applicant distinguishes the ’554 application claims over prior art references cited by the Examiner, namely, Lennox and Wiki. Ex. 2008, 40–41. The applicant argues that “neither Lennox nor Wiki discloses attaching the construction material that was rolled in the end of the strip to the vertical, outward-facing fascia of the eaves of the roof, as claimed by Applicant.” Ex. 2008, 41 (emphasis original). Again, the claim limitation at issue, which Patent Owner directs us to, relates to the location for attaching construction material, namely, vertical outward-facing fascia. We see no similar limitation in the challenged claims. We also note that Petitioner does not rely on Lennox and Wiki in this proceeding. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner should be estopped from arguing that the challenged claims of the ’484 patent are obvious based on arguments presented to the Office concerning claims and references that are not involved in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine we need not explicitly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375. We encourage the parties to further discuss an express construction for “sheet” during trial if they choose.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,168,484
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.