- 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 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00182 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable and had not shown a second petition was necessary.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Nor has Petitioner demonstrated a need to file a second petition challenging the claims of the ’291 patent. We therefore do not grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“This overlap in coverage of the claims asserted in the district court litigation in the ’178 and ’182 petitions means that Petitioner has filed two petitions that cover the same claims asserted in the district court litigation. The few, non-overlapping claims challenged in each petition are not asserted in the district court litigation. Under the first factor in General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, 9–10 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017), we find that the petitions are directed to the same claims at issue in the district court litigation. See Paper 3, 3–4; Paper 16, 1–2. This factor weighs against exercising our discretion to allow two petitions.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art or propose its own definition of a skilled artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp. Dr. Kern testifies that for purposes of his analysis he is assuming the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art provided by Petitioner. Ex. 2001 ¶ 20. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’291 patent and the prior art of record. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, Petitioner does not propose any claim construction of any claim term expressly. Pet. 18. At this stage, Patent Owner does not propose the construction of any claim term expressly. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the present record, we determine that we do not need to construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute, and no terms require construction for us to reach our Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,349,291 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Apr 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00178 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 14–22, 24, and 25 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Carr–Almy obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner also asserts that the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On the current record, we preliminarily interpret “electrical cables” as “wiring that conducts current or signals.” The parties are encouraged to present relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of this term and whether the preamble should be construed as limiting. This meaning is consistent with the ’291 patent’s description of cable hangers used to support “electrical cables [that] extend from a power or signal source to a location of application” in solar, mining, and electrical industries. Ex. 1001, 1:18–22 (emphasis added). The electrical cables are DC wires that attach to solar panels, AC cables that power motors to rotate solar panels, and category five cables for control wiring. Id. at 1:22–51. The claims recite “electrical cables” not “electrical power cables.” Ex. 1001, 10:24–13:7. We do not limit “electrical cables” to particular types of cables, e.g., AC cables or DC cables, absent a lexicographic definition or a disclaimer in the specification, neither of which are asserted by either party in this proceeding. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“artisan would have modified Almy’s system by replacing wire loops 204B with Caveney’s cable supports that attach to building structures and frames using fasteners as discussed in Section II.D.2. supra, rather than messenger wires extending from solar panels. As discussed in Section II.D. supra for Ground 1, Caveney’s cable hangers are secured to building structures and frames by threaded rod fasteners. On this record, we are not persuaded that the hanger plates 40 and clamps 34 that fasten Caveney’s cable hangers to building structures and brackets using apertures 46, 48 and fasteners would secure Caveney’s cable hangers to Almy’s messenger wire, or that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify these structures of Caveney to attach to, and be disposed along, Almy’s messenger wire in order to replace Almy’s closed wire loops 204B with Caveney’s open cable supports 42, 44. Dr. Beik testifies that “Caveney is directed at a multi-tiered cable hanger that can be adapted for attaching to a variety of structures or support surfaces, including messenger wires,” but he supports this assertion by citing Caveney’s disclosure that cable support system 30 is secured to any fastener or structure such as a threaded rod, different brackets, a joist, a ceiling, or a wall. Ex. 1002 ¶ 76 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:3–9). On the current record, we find that the threaded rods secure cable support system 30 to the structures. See Ex. 1003, 2:65–3:1, 3:21–28, 5:63–67, 6:12–15, Figs. 1–7, 20–22. We find that Caveney’s cable supports are designed to attach to fixed, rigid structures such as brackets, joists, ceilings, and walls in a building using threaded rods with hanger plates 40 and brackets 34 that have apertures 46, 48 to receive threaded rod fasteners that secure the cable hangers to building structures. Id. at 3:1–28, 5:63–67, Figs. 1–7, 10–13, 20–22. We are not persuaded on this record that the threaded rod fasteners teach or suggest messenger wires. d. Conclusion On this record, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Caveney and Almy as asserted by Petitioner to render claim 14 unpatentable.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,349,291 - Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 8, 2024 · IPR2023-00030 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable under § 103 over the Wang-based and Chambers-Terrill-based combinations listed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Consistent with their proposals, we adopt Petitioner’s definition with Patent Owner’s contention that a master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of relevant work or research experience also suffice. PO Resp. 7 (asserting that “Patent Owner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is essentially the same as that of Petitioner”). This level of ordinary skill is consistent with the description of the relevant field of invention and background art in the ’941 patent (see Ex. 1001, 1:14–3:51) and the prior art. However, the outcome of our Decision would be the same under either party’s proposal.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The ’941 patent describes prior art firewalls as “often used to provide segmentation within internal networks [to] help stop the spread of attacks” and provide “the ability to see and control internal network traffic [that] can be lost” when firewalls move to the cloud. Ex. 1001, 1:35–40 (emphasis added). Thus, prior art firewalls can control internal network traffic between endpoints within the network. Nor does the claim language exclude prior art firewalls from controlling endpoint to endpoint connections. 4. Conclusion We determine that the ’941 patent does not clearly and unmistakably disavow legacy firewalls. The sole use of that term in the specification does not identify what features are disavowed (Ex. 1001, 4:52–67; Reply 2), and the ’941 patent describes prior art firewalls as having features and functions that P/PoPs perform (id. at 3–5) including segmenting internal networks and controlling internal network traffic. Ex. 1001, 1:35–40; see Tr. 12:18–15:1. Thus, we determine that “controlling endpoint to endpoint connections within the enterprise network” has its ordinary and customary meaning, which may include controlling endpoint to endpoint connections via firewalls. We discuss this limitation further in Section III.D.2.c. infra.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“5. Analysis We find that Petitioner’s asserted modifications with Pasdar would have improved Wang because Wang provided services at the firewall level, but Pasdar “implement[ed] these services at the P/PoP(s), offloading some tasks from individual firewalls and thus . . . enhancing performance.” Reply 17 (“Patent Owner ignores other benefits, like the flexibility and granular customization, that Pasdar’s P/PoP system would offer to Wang’s system.”). We find that Pasdar’s P/PoPs would customize Wang’s initial settings to enhance security as the network expands and would have allowed Wang’s distributed devices to leverage a single global perimeter policy for security, privacy, and application resiliency and availability as Pasdar teaches. Pet. 45 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 31; citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106); id. at 43–45; Reply 20. We agree with Dr. Lee’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to add Pasdar’s functionalities to route communications to a P/PoP and customize a P/PoP’s security stack to Wang. Ex. 1002 ¶ 106. The upgrade would have improved Wang’s similarly and would have had a reasonable expectation of success by using Wang’s calls to modify a P/PoP’s security stack to implement a policy, and combining these known prior art elements according to their known functions would have yielded predictable results as Dr. Lee testifies. Id. ¶ 107. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 10,826,941 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,826,941 - PTAB · Mar 14, 2024 · IPR2024-00366 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all petition grounds: claims 1–11 over Amanatides and Kohn, and claim 2 over Selzer and Fiske, based on a reasonable likelihood of success.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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.” A decision to institute under § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). In addition, per Board practice, if the Board institutes trial, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Having considered the arguments and the associated evidence presented in the Petition and in the Realtek IPR, we institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Reasons to Combine the Teachings of Lindholm ’685 and Lindholm ’913 Noting that Lindholm ’685 and Lindholm ’913 are both directed to a multithreaded shader and much of their Specifications and figures are the same, in the Realtek IPR Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized the Lindholm references disclose different details of the same unified shader architecture. Realtek IPR Pet. 21–22. In the Realtek IPR, Petitioner also states that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked to the additional disclosure in Lindholm ’913 for additional details about scheduling threads for execution independent of other threads. Id. at 22. In the Realtek IPR, we agreed that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of the Lindholm references. We apply the same reasoning to this Decision do not repeat that analysis here.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“Analysis in the Realtek IPR In the Realtek IPR we were persuaded that Patent Owner antedated the Lindholm references and therefore they are not prior art. Therefore, in this proceeding we are not persuaded that Petitioner will succeed on its challenge based on the Lindholm references. Realtek IPR Dec. to Inst. 23– 41. We apply the same reasoning in this Decision and do not repeat our analysis here. In the Realtek IPR, we also noted that if the Lindholm references were considered applicable prior art, we are persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lindholm ’685 and Lindholm ’913, and that in combination, the references would have taught, or at least suggested, all the limitations of claims 1–11 to a person of ordinary skill in the art. We apply the same reasoning to this Decisions and do not repeat that analysis here. Id.” slip op. at 22
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,760,454 - PTAB · Mar 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00053 · APJ James P Calve · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds because the petition showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a similar discipline, with at least two years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing, planning, or implementing sensor networks using LIDAR, radar and/or cameras and corresponding data analysis” and “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18– 23). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’349 patent and the prior art of record, and we adopt it for consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[n]o terms require construction to determine that claims 1–20 are invalid under §§ 101, 102, 103.” Pet. 9. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the construction of any term or phrase. On the present record, we determine that we do not need to construe any claim terms to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,538,349 - Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2024 · IPR2022-01587 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 11–18 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review of claims 1–8 and 11–18 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,237,282 B2 (“the ’282 patent”) (Ex. 1001). Paper 2 (“Pet.”), 1. Fortinet, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the standard in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds asserted in the Petition. Paper 9 (“Dec. Inst.”).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“3. Motivation to Combine and Expectation of Success Petitioner asserts a skilled artisan would have combined Nagayama” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,237,282 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,237,282 - PTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01344 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Mercedes-Benz would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We find, on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 based on Sinharoy.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Id. Patent Owner does not comment on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill nor does it propose an alternative. We regard Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The claim language of independent claim 1 recites “wherein the caching agent is a single caching agent for the processor.” Ex. 1001, 7:58– 59 (emphasis added). Claims 11 and 15 also recite a “single caching agent.” Ex. 1001, 8:38 (claim 11), 9:7 (claim 15). Similarly, as Patent Owner notes, the specification of the ’895 patent discloses at various places a “single caching agent.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:13–17 (“[E]ach of the processors can include an IIO module to provide an interface to one or more off-chip peripheral devices and a single caching agent shared by the IIO module and the cores of the processor.”) (emphasis added)). The description of Figure 6 explains that a “single caching agent” may be formed from distributed portions. Ex. 1001, 6:35–37. At this stage of the proceeding we preliminarily construe a “single caching agent” to mean one caching agent for the processor, which may be formed from distributed portions.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Xu with Sinharoy because both use the POWER7 processor chip. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 97 (“Xu, in the same field of art as Sinharoy and in fact describing the same POWER7 chip as Sinharoy”). Patent Owner does not challenge the motivation to combine these references. We find that, on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently a motivation to combine Sinharoy and Xu. Patent Owner also does not address Petitioner’s showing for claims 2 and 10. For the reasons given above and in the Petition, we find Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that claims 2 and 10 are taught or suggested by the combination of Sinharoy and Xu. On this record, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these challenges.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,575,895 - Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / MGM Resorts International et al. v. Gan (UK) LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00027 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Original claims 11–18, 21, and 22 and proposed substitute claims 23–39 were held unpatentable; the revised motion to amend was granted in part and otherwise denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“For reasons discussed below, we grant in-part Patent Owner’s RMTA and cancel original claims 1 and 3–10. We otherwise deny Patent Owner’s RMTA to enter revised substitute claims 23–31, which non-contingently amend original claims 1 and 3–10, and we deny Patent Owner’s RMTA to enter revised substitute claims 32–39, which contingently amend original claims 12–14, 16–18, 21, and 22.” slip op. at 3
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther
“V. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE Because our findings and determinations do not rely on the paragraphs of Dr. Shamos’ declaration that Petitioner’s Motion to Strike seeks to strike, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Strike as moot.” slip op. at 104
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Having reviewed the arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that original claims 11–18, 21, and 22 of the challenged claims of the ’296 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'IneligibleStep1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that revised substitute claims 23–39 are unpatentable. Specifically, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that revised substitute claims 23–39 are not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, and claims 23–39 are unpatentable under prior art asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as discussed below. See Opp. RMTA 4–6, 8–28.” slip op. at 3
Patent outcomesUS 8,821,296 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 8,821,296
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.