- Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2022 · PGR2021-00108 · APJ Aaron W Moore · PGR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable, including because the asserted combination did not link rule generation to the packet correlation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Obviousness Analysis A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, primarily: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.6 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–2, 7–8, 10, 12–13, and 17–18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 18–64. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2-3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’797 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “determining . . . a first plurality of log entries” and “determining . . . a second plurality of log entries” is “identifying” or “ascertaining” log entries.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he terms “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the first plurality of packets received by the network device,” and “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the second plurality of packets transmitted by the network device” (“provisioning rules”) . . . should be given their plain and ordinary meaning—rules configured to identify packets.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Neither party, however, argues that the prior art arguments presented in the Petition turn on the construction of these terms. Instead, it appears that they are raised as claim construction issues only because Petitioner is challenging the language under Section 112. We will discuss the Section 112 arguments below, but do not see a dispute about the constructions offered by the parties above the makes a difference in the prior art analysis and, therefore, do not construe these terms at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“respect to this limitation for several reasons, including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning” is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not “based on the determined correlation.” Prelim. Resp. 38. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the determined correlation, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the first host.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,931,797 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01154 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–27 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either asserted Jungck-based obviousness combination rendered the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Jungck and Wood meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition’s avoidance of the operation of edge caches when edge caches are important in the processing of traffic flowing across the boundary undermines this ground of the Petition. If Petitioner wished to rely on an embodiment or configuration in which the edge caches were irrelevant, the edge caches were redundant to the edge server, or the edge caches were unnecessary, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to explain sufficiently how and why that was the case. Petitioner was aware of the edge caches because it appears to have omitted all references to them in the Petition yet did not explain why this was done. Additionally, although Petitioner’s declarant does include references to edge caches, its declarant also does not explain sufficiently the relevance of those edge caches. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 148, 212, 214, 215, 227, 323. Additionally, Petitioner’s references to collateral estoppel do not relieve Petitioner from the burden to describe its contentions regarding obviousness in the Petition.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Our reviewing court has held that “[c]ollateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351–1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context.” MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Webpower, Inc. v. WAG ACQUISITION, LLC, Case IPR2016- 01239, Paper 21 at 26–28 (PTAB Dec. 26, 2017). “Issue preclusion [i.e., collateral estoppel] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377 (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S. Ct. 1501, 28 L.Ed. 2d 788 (1971) (finding collateral estoppel applies to a patentee who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of a patent in a prior federal case.)). Patent Owner points out that the claims at issue in IPR2018-01443, 1444, 1513 (“prior IPRs”) did not include the “entire boundary” or “all traffic” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26–27, 32, 44. We agree. Collateral estoppel does not apply because there are differences between the claim limitation at issue here and the adjudicated claim limitations at issue in the prior IPRs. See In re Freeman, 30 F.3d at 1465; accord MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377–1378; cf. In re Arunachalam, 709 F. App’x 699, 702 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (finding collateral estoppel applies to an adjudicated claim that is not “materially different” than the adjudicated claims).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner requests that the preamble of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 be treated as limiting. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. These preambles provide antecedent basis for “packet security gateway,” “boundary,” “network,” and “one or more other networks.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:2, 22:13–18, 23:35–42). The preambles also recite the “plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a [protected] network,” which is “essential to understand” the “all traffic” limitation in the body of these claims and thus ‘“give life, meaning, and vitality”’ to the claims. Id. (citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). The preambles provide the context for the body of the independent claims by defining the arrangement of the “plurality of packet security gateways” relative to the “boundary” of the protected network and thus the basis for applying “packet filtering rules . . . to all network traffic traversing the boundary.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:8). The “entire interface” limitation also was relied on during prosecution of the parent ’437 Patent’s claims to distinguish them from the prior art. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2008, 254–61; Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808–09). Petitioner does not dispute the preambles are limiting. Pet. 18–21, 37. For, the reasons above, we construe the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as limiting. After review of the current record, we conclude that, other than determining the preambles are limiting, no express claim construction is necessary to determine whether to institute review of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,785,266 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01136 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1 and 2 on the § 103 ground over Popplewell and Sazani, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“We determine that the Popplewell article relied upon by Petitioner in this proceeding is the same or substantially the same as the art previously presented to the Office. As noted by Patent Owner, Popplewell was cited in an IDS and indicated as being considered by the Examiner during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 1, 16; Ex. 2012, 2; Ex. 2007, 15. Moreover, Popplewell is discussed in the Specification of the ’461 patent as prior art in which “a technique for skipping exon 53 with a high efficiency has not yet been established.” Ex. 1001, 2:55–56, 3:5–6. This is sufficient under the under the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework. As explained in Advanced Bionics, “[p]reviously presented art includes art made of record . . . such as on an [IDS].” Advanced Bionics at 7–8. We further note that the Popplewell ’212 reference that formed the basis of the Examiner’s rejection during prosecution appears to include substantially similar disclosures as Popplewell, including with regard to the 25-mer PMO-A, which form the primary basis for Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments in this proceeding. See, e.g., Ex. 1023 ¶ 87 (“When tested and compared directly at 300 nM doses by nucleofection, PMO-G, PMO-H and PMO-A were most active producing in the order of 60% exon skipping”). To be sure, we recognize that the Examiner does not appear to have specifically considered, nor did Patent Owner otherwise highlight during prosecution, Popplewell’s or Popplewell ’212’s teachings regarding the viability of PMO-A. We address this failure under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 23
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“2. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Patent Owner contends that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a) because of a Mutual Confidentiality Agreement between the parties. Prelim. Resp. 65–73. Patent Owner argues that filing a petition for inter partes review violates the Agreement’s forum selection clause, which requires all potential actions to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Id. at 66–68 (citing Ex. 2026 § 1). Patent Owner acknowledges that the District of Delaware has already denied Patent Owner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking withdrawal of this and related Petitions due to the Agreement. See id. at 67– 68. Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues that the Board should deny this Petition so that the Federal Circuit can address the issue on appeal. Id. at 74. Finally, Patent Owner argues that considerations of efficiency, fairness, and the merits favor discretionary denial. Id. at 71–73. Petitioner responds that “[t]he Board has consistently refused to interpret and enforce contractual forum-selection clauses in deciding whether to institute post-grant proceedings.” Reply 6–7 (citing Samsung Elecs. Co. v. NuCurrent, Inc., IPR2019-00861, Paper 15, 20 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2020); Bally Gaming, Inc. v. New Vision Gaming & Dev., Inc., CBM2018- 00006, Paper 47, 7–8 (PTAB June 19, 2019); Dot Hill Sys. Corp. v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., IPR2015-00822, Paper 18, 6–10 (PTAB Sept. 17, 2015)). Petitioner further contends that the District of Delaware has already denied Patent Owner’s request for preliminary injunction on this issue, finding that the Agreement indicates that the parties intended to allow IPRs to proceed. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1103, 5). We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments related to the forum selection clause in the parties’ Agreement. We determine, however, that the particular facts of this case, including the District of Delaware’s denial of a preliminary injunction, do not warrant exercise our discretion to deny institution on this basis.” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that the challenged claims of the ’461 patent are unpatentable. We therefore institute trial on all challenged claims under the ground raised in the Petition. See PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Indicating that a decision whether to institute an inter partes review “require[s] a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 46
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Ph.D. in chemistry, biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, molecular biology, or an equivalent, and several years of experience with AOs for inducing exon skipping. A POSA would also have familiarity with methods for making and testing the safety and efficacy of such AOs, both in vitro and in vivo, and the use of AOs for inducing exon skipping in the context of medical conditions, such as DMD, that may be treated by administering such AOs. Further, a POSA would have knowledge of and experience with chemical modifications that may be incorporated into AOs, such as modifications to the backbone and/or nucleobases of the AOs, and the potential impact of those modifications on the utility of the AOs. Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1097 ¶¶ 91, 92). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 14. Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is unopposed and appears consistent with the Specification and art of record, we apply it here.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,407,461 - PTAB · Jan 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01138 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–12 based on the §103 ground combining Popplewell and Sazani.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which that subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In analyzing the obviousness of a combination of prior art elements, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of skill in the art “to combine . . . known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of a challenged claim is not necessary to establish obviousness. Id. Rather, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. Accordingly, a party that petitions the Board for a determination of unpatentability based on obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted). slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“325(d), the Board applies a two-part framework: (1) first, we determine whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office, or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, we examine whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, 8.” slip op. at 39
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“institution under § 314(a) because of a Mutual Confidentiality Agreement between the parties. Prelim. Resp. 71. Patent Owner argues that filing a petition for inter partes review violates the Agreement’s forum selection clause, which requires all potential actions to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Id. at 66–67 (citing Ex. 2026 § 1). Patent Owner acknowledges that the District of Delaware has already denied Patent Owner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking withdrawal of this and related Petitions due to the Agreement. See id. at 68. Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues that the Board should deny this Petition so that the Federal Circuit can address the issue on appeal. Id. at 73. Finally, Patent Owner argues that considerations of efficiency, fairness, and the merits favor discretionary denial. Id. at 70–72. Petitioner responds that “[t]he Board has consistently refused to interpret and enforce contractual forum-selection clauses in deciding whether to institute post-grant proceedings.” Reply 6–7 (citing Samsung Elecs. Co. v. NuCurrent, Inc., IPR2019-00861, Paper 15, 20 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2020); Bally Gaming, Inc. v. New Vision Gaming & Dev., Inc., CBM2018- 00006, Paper 47, 7–8 (PTAB June 19, 2019); Dot Hill Sys. Corp. v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., IPR2015-00822, Paper 18, 6–10 (PTAB Sept. 17, 2015)). Petitioner further contends that the District of Delaware has already denied Patent Owner’s request for preliminary injunction on this issue, finding that the Agreement indicates that the parties intended to allow IPRs to proceed. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1103, 5). We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments related to the forum selection clause in the parties’ Agreement. We determine, however, that the particular facts of this case, including the District of Delaware’s denial of a preliminary injunction, do not warrant exercise our discretion to deny institution on this basis.” slip op. at 46
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in chemistry, biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, molecular biology, or an equivalent, and several years of experience with AOs for inducing exon skipping” and would “have familiarity with methods for making and testing the safety and efficacy of such AOs, both in vitro and in vivo, and the use of AOs for inducing exon skipping in the context of medical conditions, such as DMD, that may be treated by administering such AOs.” Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1099 ¶ 98). Petitioner also proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have knowledge of and experience with chemical modifications that may be incorporated into AOs, such as modifications to the backbone and/or nucleobases of the AOs, and the potential impact of those modifications on the utility of the AOs.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1099 ¶ 99). Patent Owner states, “[s]olely for purposes of this IPR, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSA. To the extent the Board decides to institute this Petition, Patent Owner reserves the right to present a different definition post-institution.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is unopposed at this stage of the proceeding and appears consistent with the Specification and art of record, we apply it here.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,647,741 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2021 · IPR2021-00984 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted obviousness grounds taught or suggested the claimed responsive fragmentation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, and Reply, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one Challenged Claim of the ’669 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’669 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and one to two years of experience in the design and development of network communication systems. Alternatively, a POSITA would have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and fewer years of design and development experience. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63). “Patent Owner takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” Prelim. Resp. 37. We regard Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and consistent with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 3 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which also is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Yang. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim terms for construction. Pet. 6 (“Petitioner construes each term as having its ordinary and customary meaning.”); Prelim. Resp. 11 (“Patent Owner does not propose any claim term departs from its ordinary and customary meaning.”). We do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See 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.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“While not showing a teaching away, the above statement in Sourani contrasting stop points and fragmentation does show that one of ordinary skill in the art reading Sourani would know that the stop points in Sourani are not intended to be fragments. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why, despite this contrast, one of ordinary skill would use fragmentation with the system of Sourani.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,876,669 - PTAB · Nov 18, 2021 · IPR2021-00854 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–35 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Birnboim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that 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). The Federal Circuit has interpreted the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, based on the information presented, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–35 of the ’240 patent on all grounds.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that A person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have had (1) a Ph.D. in microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, or related discipline; (2) at least two years of post-graduate experience in the area of nucleic acid extraction and analysis; and (3) experience with the development or use of nucleic acid 10 Koller, WO 91/02740, published Mar. 7, 1991. Ex. 1016. 11 Robert E. Farrell, Jr., Ph.D., “RNA Methodologies: A Laboratory Guide for Isolation and Characterization,” (3rd Ed., 2005). Ex. 1026. extraction formulations, and the literature concerning nucleic acid extraction and analysis. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, at this stage of the proceeding, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, which is not substantively opposed by Patent Owner and appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’240 patent. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner offer any position on the construction of any claim term. See Pet.; Prelim. Resp. 7. On this record, and for purposes of this Decision, we decline to construe any claim terms beyond the limited extent we do so below in our analysis, because it is not necessary to do so in reaching our decision on institution. C. Principles of Law” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“and particularly claim 1. Petitioner provides a detailed analysis of where each element of claim 1 is found in Birnboim. Pet. 13–19. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Birnboim’s Example 3 discloses an aqueous composition comprising the one or more chaotropes, one or more detergents, one or more reducing agents, one or more chelators, and one or more buffers, as recited in the claim. Id. at 13–18. Petitioner also asserts that “Birnboim’s reagents are present in an amount sufficient to perform the claimed functions.” Id. at 18–23 (heading capitalization normalized and underlining omitted).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,669,240 - PTAB · Nov 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00860 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Birnboim, Mori, and Farrell, Petitioner provides a detailed analysis of where each claim element is found in the cited references and discusses why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine those elements with a reasonable expectation of success. See e.g., Pet. 34–42 (discussing motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success with respect to claim 1). For the purpose of institution, we focus on independent claim 1.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Taylor, Petitioner asserts that A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had (1) a Ph.D. in microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, or related discipline; (2) at least two years of post-graduate experience in the area of nucleic acid extraction and analysis; and (3) experience with the development or use of nucleic acid extraction formulations, and the literature concerning nucleic acid extraction and analysis. Pet. 10 citing Ex. 1002, ¶¶34–35. Patent Owner presently does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, at this stage of the proceeding, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, which is not substantively opposed by Patent Owner and appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’256 patent. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, we should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “stock solution” as meaning “a formulated supply of solution for future use,” which, in the context of the instant claims, refers to “the aqueous composition before it is mixed with a sample.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1029; Ex. 1002 ¶ 38). Patent Owner neither contests Petitioner’s definition of “stock solution” nor requests that we construe any other claim term, but reserves its right to do so. Prelim. Resp. 7. At this stage of the proceeding, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “stock” solution as Petitioner proposes. In section II.D.4, below, we note that Patent Owner implicitly relies on narrow constructions of “kills pathogens” and “without degrading nucleic acids.” As these terms may be critical to our final determination but have not been briefed by either party, we provisionally apply their plain and ordinary meaning. D. Ground 1: Obviousness in View of Birnboim, Mori, and Farrell” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner provides reasoned bases for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the cited references to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 34–42 (citations omitted). Summarizing its arguments, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare solutions comprising a chaotrope, a detergent, a reducing agent, a chelator, a shortchain alkanol, and a buffer (with the associated acid and base) at a pH of 5–7 with a reasonable expectation that, when combined with a biological sample, the solution would denature proteins, inactivate nucleases, and kill pathogens, all without degrading nucleic acids of the sample. Ex. 1002, ¶151. The POSA would have been motivated to use Mori’s surfactants or defoaming agents along with Farrell’s nuclease-free water in Birnboim’s stock solution and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Ex. 1002, ¶¶137–152.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,683,256 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2021 · IPR2020-00860 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 are unpatentable as obvious over the combinations of Golan and Martin, with additional references applied to specific dependent claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“Petitioner’s copying of the ’942 patent’s technologies from Patent Owner also supports [the] conclusion” of nonobviousness. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 134). Patent Owner presents arguments with respect to the failure of Golan and Border inventors to achieve what is disclosed by the ’942 patent. Id. at 40–41. Patent Owner also asserts: “That Petitioner copied the invention of the ’942 patent (among other Corephotonics technologies, which Petitioner also appears to have copied) is strongly implied by the course of conduct between the parties and the timing of Petitioner’s announcement of their own version of ‘smooth transition’ in their iPhone 7 series in Fall of 2016.” Id. at 56–57 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 139).” slip op. at 46
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“IV. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s inclusion of Exhibits 2101,” slip op. at 79
Patent outcomesUS 10,326,942 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,326,942 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, and supplemental briefing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of challenged claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 of the ’928 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’928 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and one to two years of experience in the design and development of network communication systems. Alternatively, a POSITA would have a Master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and less years of design and development experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–71). Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 30. We regard Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner does not propose any claim terms for construction. Pet. 7 (“For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes each of the ’928 claim terms as having its ordinary and custom[ary] meaning.”). Although, Petitioner does submit that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR only, Petitioner relies on the claim scope positions Patent Owner has advanced in district court for ‘port definer module.’” Pet. 8. Similarly, Patent Owner argues each claim term should have its ordinary and customary meaning, except that, as in the parallel district court proceeding, the function of alleged means-plus-function term “port definer module” should be construed to be “designating any one physical link of the logical link and examining the designated link of the logical link.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We note that, in the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not appear to identify any structure in the Specification for performing that function. See generally Prelim. Resp. Regardless, we do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See 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.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have (1) taken Y.1731, which says nothing concerning aggregated physical links with a single logical link to which packets are directed; (2) then turned to the architectural basis for Y.1731, namely “Ethernet specification G.8010/Y.1306”; (3) then turned to standards “IEEE 802.1D, 802.1Q, and 802.3,” which are “account[ed] for” by G.8010/Y.1306, and specifically selected to pursue 802.3 from among those; (4) then, without any reference or indication in Y.1731 itself, turned specifically to standard IEEE 802.3ad within the set of 802.3 standards, and specifically to its disclosure of aggregated physical links with a single logical link; and then (5) upon making all of these connections, understood Y.1731 itself to disclose or teach aggregated physical links with a single logical link, particularly in the context of the Challenged Claims as a whole. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the [] patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”); Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.”). Although “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421), the Federal Circuit has observed that “‘the prejudice of hindsight bias’ often overlooks that the ‘genius of invention is often a combination of known elements which in hindsight seems preordained.’” Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,768,928 - NVIDIA Corporation v. Invensas CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 1, 2021 · IPR2020-01729 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable under §103 over the listed combinations of Jaso, Stine1998, Pramanik1997, and Robinson.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner responds that, because Jaso discloses a damascene process with trenches, Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction is “unnecessary.” Reply 32. We agree that the damascene process of Jaso is the same damascene process to which Patent Owner seeks to limit this claim term. Patent Owner does not argue otherwise in its Sur-reply. See Sur-reply. Thus, we decline to construe the term “etching . . . trenches into a dielectric layer.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’231 patent “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in physics, chemistry, materials science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or related discipline, in addition to 3–5 years of experience in the fabrication of integrated circuit devices. Additional years of experience could substitute for formal education, and vice versa.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the qualifications of a POSA for the purposes of this IPR.” PO Resp. 9. We regard Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’231 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Overall, we have considered all of Patent Owner’s arguments but do not find that they undermine the overall credibility of Dr. Boning. However, we will consider any question regarding his credibility on any specific issue raised by Patent Owner in the obviousness analysis below, where appropriate.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Jaso and Stine1998 “to etch a plurality of dummy trenches in a dielectric layer between a first (wider) trench and a series of second (narrower) trenches.” Id. at 66 (citation omitted). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary still in the art “would be motivated to combine the teachings in Jaso and Stine1998, as both references are directed to the addition of dummy conductors to equalize pattern density to improve CMP planarity.” Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1004, code (57), 3:29–64; Ex. 1005, 668). In particular, Petitioner states that “Stine1998 enhances and improves upon the disclosure in Jaso by providing general teachings and specific methods that are widely applicable to dummy metal-fill techniques for addressing added capacitance.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1005, 670–672). Petitioner points out that “Stine1998 expressly motivates a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to apply its teachings to a damascene process requiring dummy-fill to enhance planarity” because Stine1998 states its methodology can be extended to “inlaid metal techniques such as copper (emphasis omitted). Analysis of Patent Owner’s Arguments 1) Prior Art Does not “Look for” a Specific Configuration Patent Owner argues “Stine1998 does not tell the POSA to look for a specific configuration of structures, and then insert dummy metal into a particular location within that configuration (as the Relevant Solution does.)” PO Resp. 36–37. Patent Owner also argues that Jaso and Stine1998 “together accordingly tell the POSA to focus on pattern density, and to take steps to ensure that variations in pattern density across the chip are minimized” as opposed to looking for the particular configuration called out by the claims. Id. at 58. There is no requirement in the claims for the prior art to “look for” specific structures, but rather it must disclose those structure required by the claims. For the reasons articulated in the Petition, we agree that the combined teachings of Jaso and Stine1998 teach the structure required by claim 1. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1004, code (57), 3:29–64; Ex. 1005, 668), 50–52 (citing Ex. 1005, 670). We also credit Dr. Boning’s testimony that these references’ teachings “to locate dummies in sparse regions proximate to wide and narrow lines...would obviously include placing dummies in regions between such lines.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 183 (emphasis added). The fact that Jaso and Stine1998 may not purposefully seek out the configuration relied on by Patent Owner does not undermine Petitioner’s showing that the proper configuration would result from an obvious combination of the references. Thus, we are not persuaded by these arguments.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 6,232,231 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,232,231
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.