- Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00105 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–13 and 16 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Fells.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“According to our precedent, “if the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under [Becton, Dickinson] factors (e) and (f).” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10; see also Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2023) (vacating a Board decision denying institution where the examiner considered references but never provided any discussion, analysis, or other findings, and the petition provided a sufficient argument on the merits, which the examiner misapprehended or overlooked). Here, in evaluating Becton, Dickinson factor (c), we determine that the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to Fells and Cook is not well developed and neither reference was the basis for a rejection. We also determine, for reasons we discuss more fully below, that InductEV has shown that the Examiner materially erred by overlooking at least the teachings of Fell as applied to claim 1 (Becton, Dickinson factor (e)), and that the Petition presents additional evidence and facts, including testimony by Dr. Allen, that warrant reconsideration of Fells (Becton, Dickinson factor (f)). See infra Section IV.C. Thus, we decline to deny institution discretionarily under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63); Prelim. Resp. 5–6. We agree that, for this decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We discuss the claim terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,027,184 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding compelling evidence that Hirler anticipates claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may institute review, however, only upon a determination that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying that standard, for reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Id. at 5–6. 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. We also apply additional guidance issued by the Director on the application of the Fintiv factors. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022).12 The Fintiv Memo states that “to benefit the patent system and the public good, the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Id. at 2.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“1. “the sidewalls of said trenches in said base layer” Petitioner requests an express construction of a single claim term, namely, the term in claim 1 that specifies “the sidewalls of said trenches in said base layer.” Pet. 17. We agree with Patent Owner that no express construction of that term is necessary to resolve whether to institute review. See Prelim. Resp. 4 (arguing that this term “has no apparent relevance to any of the asserted prior art grounds”). We thus decline to expressly construe the term at this stage of the proceeding. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim terms are construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, on this record, we preliminarily determine that the phrase “lateral contact layer” does not require “a dopant concentration between P and P+ (P* doping) for an N-channel MOSFET or between N and N+ (N* doping) in a P-channel MOSFET.” Prelim. Resp. 8. b. Dopant Implantation We next consider Patent Owner’s view that “the lateral contact layer” of claim 1 requires “a region of dopant which is implanted into sidewalls of the source contact trenches.” Prelim. Resp. 8. We discern no words in claim 1, and the parties identify none, that even remotely touch upon a requirement related to dopant implantation. See id. at 7–8; Ex. 1001, 5:37– 6:17 (claim 1). Patent Owner argues that the written description “makes clear that the lateral contact layer is implanted into the sidewall of the source contact trenches.” Prelim. Resp. 7. However, by way of support, Patent Owner again merely directs the Board to written descriptions of embodiments of the invention. See id. at 7–8 (highlighting portions of the specification that describe embodiments of the invention). Patent Owner does not argue that the phrase “lateral contact layer” is” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,629,634 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01268 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted Paasonen and Hotelling grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–10 of the ’631 patent to determine whether:” slip op. at 48
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), weigh in favor of denying institution in view of the district court litigation. Prelim. Resp. 27–47. A USPTO Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Interim Procedure”) provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9. Petitioner has submitted such a stipulation. Ex. 1300; Paper 24, 8. Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner acknowledges that it and Patent Owner have proposed constructions in the district court litigation, but contends that “the Board need not construe these terms because the prior art discloses or renders obvious embodiments within the indisputable scope of the claims under the parties’ and any reasonable interpretations.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner similarly points to the proposed constructions in the district court litigation but also does not propose any claim construction in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 24–25. At this time, we determine that no terms of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Here, Petitioner makes a sufficient showing that “Paasonen and Nakano are in the same field as the ’631 [patent]—which includes mobile interfaces,” wherein “Paasonen discloses sequentially displaying the four most-recently active applications in the application switcher panel,” and “Nakano’s teachings permit a user to browse additional applications.” Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:32–51; Ex. 1005, 1:6–9, 3:41–4:25; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1, 6, 14–15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 119). On this present record, we are sufficiently persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, supported by the testimony of Dr. Madisetti, that a POSITA would have been motivated “to modify Paasonen’s application switcher panel with Nakano’s scrolling teachings in order to more easily access recently-active applications by scrolling through more than four icons.” Id. at 45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 120. Having reviewed all of Petitioner’s assertions, as well as the supporting evidence, we determine on this record that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing Paasonen in combination with Nakano discloses “in response to a first command for sequentially displaying icons, performing sequential display of icons such that an icon corresponding to the second work process is displayed,” “the icon corresponding to the second work process is displayed in the designated portion of the display,” as recited in claim 1. Further, having reviewed all of Petitioner’s assertions and the supporting evidence, we determine on this record that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of motivation to combine Paasonen and Nakano. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the evidence and arguments presented show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that the subject matter of claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Paasonen and Nakano.” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,575,631 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01267 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Wager and TS25.321.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“A Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)11 provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9. LG has submitted such a stipulation. Prelim. Reply 1; Ex. 1300. Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Later, when considering what would ultimately become claim 1 of the ’809 patent, the Examiner did not explicitly address whether the ’985 provisional application supported the applicant’s newly introduced reference to two distinct buffers (i.e., a E-DCH buffer and a HARQ buffer). See Ex. 1002, 152–59, 365–83; see also Pet. 15 (“While Wager was discussed during the ’104’s prosecution . . . , it was not substantively addressed for the ’809; . . . the Claims recite, e.g., ‘HARQ buffer’ elements that are not in the ’104’s claims.” (bolding omitted)). For reasons we discuss more fully below, see infra Section IV.C, we determine that the Examiner erred by failing to revisit, in light of the added reference to a HARQ buffer, whether the ’985 provisional application supported the claims that issued in the ’809 patent. This error was material to the patentability of the challenged claims because the applicant’s arguments responding to the Examiner’s Wager rejections depend on Wager not being prior art. See Ex. 1027, 387–88, 560–62, 754; see also Pet. 15–16 (“The Examiner . . . erred by not rejecting the ’809 Claims over Wager.”). Because we determine, under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, that the Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims, we need not address the first part of the Advanced Bionic framework. Thus, we decline to deny institution discretionarily under § 325(d).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“LG argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical and computer engineering, computer science, or the equivalent thereof, and . . . two years of experience with networking and wireless communications systems,” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–54). Pantech does not presently contest this. See Prelim. Resp. LG’s proposed articulation is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’809 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:25–38. Thus, we adopt the above articulation of the level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms, but the parties agree that the claim preambles of independent claims 1 and 6 are limiting. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–57); Prelim. Resp. 17. We agree that, for our decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We discuss the claim terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,313,809 - Netflix Inc. v. Divx, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 17, 2024 · IPR2020-00646 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, and 21–23 unpatentable as obvious over Zetts and Kaku, with claims 5, 18, and 21 also obvious over Zetts, Kaku, and Seo.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandDecided for petitioner
“the Federal Circuit. Paper 49. On September 11, 2023, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the appeal vacating our Final Written Decision and remanding for further proceedings consistent with its decision. Netflix, 80 F.4th at 1362. The Federal Circuit determined that we abused our discretion in finding that Petitioner had failed to articulate a field of endeavor. Id. at 1359. The Federal Circuit remanded to allow us to decide the “factual question of whether Kaku is directed to the same field of endeavor as the patent-in-suit.” Id. at 1361. The Federal Circuit, however, did not address the other three issues raised by Patent Owner since we did not decide those issues in the Final Written Decision and they were not presented for appeal. See generally Netflix.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decision, we stated the following:” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner has not shown that one of the prior art references is analogous to the claimed invention.” Final Dec. 9. On remand, the construction of this claim is an issue that must be decided to reach a conclusion on the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’792 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“1. Analogous Art – Field of Endeavor Before turning to Petitioner’s analysis of the claims, we address” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,472,792 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,472,792 - PTAB · Apr 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01273 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 17–24 and 26–28 on all Petition grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 17 was obvious over Sayana and Lee-689.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“grounds 1–3 (which includes all of the challenged independent claims), we consider whether Petitioner has shown that the Office materially erred. Becton, Dickinson factor (c) focuses on the record previously developed by the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. If the record, “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something.” Id. However, “if the alleged error is a disagreement with a specific finding of record by the Office, then ordinarily the petitioner’s required showing of material error must overcome persuasively that specific finding of record.” Id. at 10–11.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Id. at 6. “These factors relate to 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.” Id. 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. (citing CTPG 58 (November 2019)).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Sayana’s “codebook subset restriction” information using Lee-689’s bitmap, resulting in a system in which a separate bitmap is used for each of Sayana’s codebooks (wideband and subband) to identify precoding matrices to restrict from each respective codebook, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 114; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 85; Ex. 1007, 18:5-15. Specifically, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have made that modification in order to provide flexibility in the signaling of precoding matrices to UEs by specifying precoder subsets for each specific precoder codebook. See Ex. 1003 ¶114. Accordingly, based on the current record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Sayana and Lee-689 teaches limitation 17.a.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,136,924 - PTAB · Feb 26, 2024 · IPR2023-01275 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Clark and Manner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument that Industrial Design does not have a set definition is supported by Dr. Ben-Tzvi’s testimony. Nonetheless, we give little weight to his testimony on this point because he does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Ex. 2001 ¶ 22. Based on the present record, we do not exclude Industrial Design from the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, although the parties are free to address this issue further during trial. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’650 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would be not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“C. Mr. Kemnitzer’s Testimony Patent Owner contends that we should give little to no weight to Mr. Kemnitzer’s testimony because his “education and experience is in industrial design, rather than mechanical engineering.” Prelim. Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–6). According to Patent Owner, “[s]uch qualifications are directed more toward aesthetics than hard science,” while “[m]echanical engineering concerns are at the core of certain deficiencies in Mr. Kemnitzer’s analysis.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 58). Regardless of the precise contours of industrial design, Mr. Kemnitzer testifies that he has “substantial direct experience in designing products that utilize the manufacturing processes, components, and materials of the designs at issue in this matter” and “in designing fully adjustable products for the commercial furniture, computer, and healthcare industries.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 5. Thus, on the present record at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to minimize the weight given to his testimony for this reason. The parties, however, are free to address this issue further during trial.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends that “the ’650 patent is obvious under any reasonable construction of the claims.” Pet. 9. Petitioner points out that it contends in district court that the term “an actuator for controlling the driver” is indefinite for invoking means-plus-function claiming without providing corresponding structure. Id. (citing Ex. 1023, 36–40; Ex. 1024, 28–32). Petitioner, however, adopts Patent Owner’s construction of this term for the purposes of this proceeding—“a mechanism to activate or control equipment, e.g., by use of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electronic signals.” Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 3–4). Petitioner also points out that in the district court, the parties’ proposed constructions of “work surface” also differ. Id. Specifically, Petitioner advocates that the term should be construed as “a curved surface at the top of a cart large enough to dispense medication or hold work papers,” while Petitioner characterizes Patent Owner’s position as advocating “for a broader ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ construction. Id. (citing Ex. 1012, 8–9). Petitioner, however, states that it “includes alternate grounds using Gillis to demonstrate how the claims are invalid under either Petitioner or Patent Owner’s construction.” Id. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to expressly adopt or set forth any claim definitions aside from the term “work surface.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, contends that the claimed invention is valid under any reasonable construction. Id. Patent Owner also contends that the term “compartment” should be construed as “an enclosed space for containing an item” and that the construction of “work surface” is not dispositive here. Id. at 18–20. We agree with Patent Owner that it is not necessary to construe “work surface” at this stage of the proceeding because the construction of the term does not resolve the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,215,650 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot At Tel Aviv University, Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01283 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–63 not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because Petitioner did not sufficiently support the asserted digital mapping and delta limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Even assuming, arguendo, we were to credit Petitioner’s arguments that “it is sufficient for the prior art to render obvious a mapping exhibiting the deltas features; the prior art need not calculate the deltas themselves” (Pet. Reply 11) and that “Dr. Dallesasse agrees that modeling a Mach- Zehnder modulator as exhibiting a sinusoidal response—as Dr. Blumenthal did—was ‘reasonable’ ‘to a first order’” and “[a]ny other sources of non-linearity would merely be less significant, ‘second order effects,’” (id. at 12– 13), Petitioner does not sufficiently show that the sinusoidal response curve would look like the one Dr. Blumenthal proposes. Dr. Blumenthal asserts, without specifically or credibly explaining why, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a region of the sinusoidal response curve that includes an inflection point such that deltas both decrease and increase over some portion of the curve being linearized. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173–174 (scaling and shifting a sinusoidal response curve so that the curve contains an inflection point within the linearized region, but without adequately explaining the evidentiary basis for these selections); id. ¶ 52 (opining that “in the close vicinity of the center of the positive or negative inflection regions, otherwise known as the Quadrature point, the modulator is almost would have included regions on both sides of an inflection point). If a person of ordinary skill would have selected a region of the sinusoidal response curve on only one side of an inflection point, the evidence does not suggest that such a mapping would satisfy both limitations 1.8 and 1.9. At best, Petitioner presents an “obvious to try rationale”: In addition to the reasons mentioned above, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try a mapping scheme in which entries in the look-up table as taught by Taraschuk are selected such that successively decreasing inputs correspond to digital output entries with either decreasing, increasing, or similar deltas between their values. Doing so would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In that regard, the deltas between values of the corresponding digital outputs can either increase, decrease, or stay the same. Accordingly, there are only three possible relationships between deltas of successive digital outputs. With so few possibilities, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try each of them. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 196). The analysis for 13.8 is incorporated by reference in 13.9. See Pet. 53–54. Although there are three possible relationships between two, consecutive deltas, there are many possible sequences of deltas––Petitioner does not sufficiently show a finite number of solutions in its challenge. Petitioner’s obvious-to-try rationale is insufficient to show that a person of ordinary skill would have used a digital-to-digital-mapping in which there are regions in which the deltas are both decreasing and increasing. Moreover, Petitioner’s Reply includes positions not supported by a Reply Declaration from Dr. Blumenthal and thus, constitute attorney argument that is not sufficiently supported by evidence. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 14–15 (Petitioner arguing “Roberts’ design obviates the need for a separate,” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“Inst. Dec. 35 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:2, 8:8). Based on our review of the complete record developed during trial, we are persuaded to modify our preliminary determinations. For the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded that the scope of claim 1 does not encompass linear compensation methods effected by analog pre-distortion because the ’998 patent specification distinguishes analog pre-distortion (see Ex. 1001, 1:64–2:36) and the prosecution history specifically distinguishes analog pre-distortion from the claimed approach (see Ex. 3001, 172).6 We find persuasive Dr. Dallesasse’s testimony that “a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the [’998] patent would understand that th[e] [claimed] approach of mapping, based on the converter output pattern differs 6 Ex. 3001 is a portion of the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 11, 133, 872, a parent of the ’998 patent. Ex. 2022 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:5–9 (’998 patent disclosing common, prior art solutions such as “an analog pre-distortion circuit to feed the modulator”); Ex. 1005, 2:53; Ex. 1006, 7:67–8:5, Fig. 6); Ex. 1001, 2:35– 37(the ’998 patent describing the need for a “digital to analog converter” that would “improve[] linearity of response without sacrificing efficiency or dynamic range” as in the common, prior art solutions). Dr. Dallesasse explains how “the prosecution history of the parent ’872 patent [illustrates] that when [Patent Owner] changed ‘correct for non-linearities’ to the more specific language ‘determined based on a pattern for actuating drive voltages that alters the linearity of an optical response of the modulator,’” “the Examiner then allowed the claims over a rejection based on Roberts,” which “suggests that there are ways to ‘correct for non-linearities’ that do not meet the amended claims, as the ’998 Patent itself admits.” Id. ¶ 79 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:5–9; Ex. 2009, 2; Ex. 1010, 16–48). During prosecution, Patent Owner argued: Roberts does not disclose a “digital-to-digital mapping,” where, “for a given plurality of N digital input data bits, the mapping to the corresponding M digital output data bits is determined based on a pattern for actuating drive voltages that alters the linearity of an optical response of the modulator,” as recited in amended claim 1. Instead, the linear compensation in Roberts is performed pursuant to a compensation function c(t) when the Vx(n) multi-bit sample streams are generated. Importantly, this linear compensation in Roberts occurs before the mapping of Vx(n) to Sx(n). As a result, the mapping between Vx(n) to Sx(n) in Roberts, such as the mapping shown in Table 1 of Roberts, is not a part of the linear compensation operation performed in Roberts. Ex. 3001, 172 (emphasis added). We interpret the quoted passage to exclude analog pre-distortion because we interpret the argument distinguishing distortion techniques––in particular, those accomplished by analog compensation function, c(t). Id. Both the ’998 patent and Patent Owner’s arguments during prosecution support Dr. Dallesasse’s testimony and Patent Owner’s position that the scope of claim 1 does not encompass linear compensation methods effected by analog pre-distortion.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“limitation 1.9. This is because the idealized sinusoidal curves that form the basis of Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis lack a sufficient showing of relevance to the teachings of Taraschuk cited by Petitioner. Patent Owner persuades us that Petitioner does not point to any basis for a LUT having the recited deltas except for Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis. Although Wright generally teaches compensating for mismatches, Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis fills in limitations 1.8 and 1.9––Petitioner does not set forth a sufficiently supported reason for using the specific values recited in limitations 1.8 and 1.9. Even assuming, arguendo, we were to credit Petitioner’s arguments that “it is sufficient for the prior art to render obvious a mapping exhibiting the deltas features; the prior art need not calculate the deltas themselves” (Pet. Reply 11) and that “Dr. Dallesasse agrees that modeling a Mach- Zehnder modulator as exhibiting a sinusoidal response—as Dr. Blumenthal did—was ‘reasonable’ ‘to a first order’” and “[a]ny other sources of non-linearity would merely be less significant, ‘second order effects,’” (id. at 12– 13), Petitioner does not sufficiently show that the sinusoidal response curve would look like the one Dr. Blumenthal proposes. Dr. Blumenthal asserts, without specifically or credibly explaining why, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a region of the sinusoidal response curve that includes an inflection point such that deltas both decrease and increase over some portion of the curve being linearized. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173–174 (scaling and shifting a sinusoidal response curve so that the curve contains an inflection point within the linearized region, but without adequately explaining the evidentiary basis for these selections); id. ¶ 52 (opining that “in the close vicinity of the center of the positive or negative inflection regions, otherwise known as the Quadrature point, the modulator is almost would have included regions on both sides of an inflection point). If a person of ordinary skill would have selected a region of the sinusoidal response curve on only one side of an inflection point, the evidence does not suggest that such a mapping would satisfy both limitations 1.8 and 1.9. At best, Petitioner presents an “obvious to try rationale”: In addition to the reasons mentioned above, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try a mapping scheme in which entries in the look-up table as taught by Taraschuk are selected such that successively decreasing inputs correspond to digital output entries with either decreasing, increasing, or similar deltas between their values. Doing so would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In that regard, the deltas between values of the corresponding digital outputs can either increase, decrease, or stay the same. Accordingly, there are only three possible relationships between deltas of successive digital outputs. With so few possibilities, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try each of them. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 196). The analysis for 13.8 is incorporated by reference in 13.9. See Pet. 53–54. Although there are three possible relationships between two,” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“IV. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner requests that we exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 through 1038 submitted with Petitioner’s Reply. Paper 25, 1. Petitioner opposes. Paper 27. As we do not rely on any of these exhibits in rendering the findings and conclusions in this Decision, Patent Owner’s motion is moot.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,342,998 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,342,998 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–6 on all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Szrek and did not reach the Llach–Szrek ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than at issue in IPR2020-00084. Second, although the parties may have gained insight as to how the Board would handle challenges based on the same references asserted in the earlier proceeding, that insight (to the extent it gives an advantage) applies to both parties. Third, the first proceeding was a post-grant review that had a specific timing requirement (see 35 U.S.C. § 321(c)), in contrast to the present proceeding in which the filing of the Petition did not have the same or similar time constraint.6 In these circumstances, we find it appropriate to give less weight to factors based on the mere passage of time such as whether Petitioner knew of the prior art at the time of filing the petition in PGR2020- 00084 (clearly Petitioner did because two of the same references are asserted here) and whether Petitioner had received Patent Owner’s preliminary response from PGR2020-00084 at the time of filing the instant Petition. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we do not dive headfirst into these matters that are better addressed by the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).7 Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). 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 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that we should follow the Board’s decision in PGR2020-00084 and construe “transaction processor” and “data package” in accordance with each term’s plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; see id. at 13–19. Patent Owner does not take a position as to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. In PGR2020-00084, the Board construed “transaction processor”8 in accordance with its plain meaning as “a processor . . . that processes transactions between two devices” and specifically “decline[d] to limit processors . . . to ‘third party’ processors . . . because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty.” Ex. 1008, 22. And, as Petitioner indicates, the Board determined that “data package” also is understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 22–24; see id. at 24 n.10. At this stage of the proceeding 8 In that proceeding, the Board also construed “transaction processor system.” Ex. 1008, 13–22. and on the present record, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,865,135 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01240 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9, 14–18, 20, 22, 32, and 34–36, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Ueda, the SIP Standard, and the SDP Standard.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We find Peloton’s argument persuasive that Aarts and Ueda differ materially, at least in that Aarts does not disclose “play-list information.” See Ex. 1002, 533–34. It does not matter whether that limitation is “central” to the challenged claims, because an obviousness determination “requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“13. Conclusion as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, we determine that Peloton has shown, sufficiently persuasively at this stage, that Ueda in combination with the SIP and SDP Standards teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features of each reference as Peloton argues in the Petition. We therefore determine that Peloton is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Ueda in view of the SIP Standard and the SDP Standard.” slip op. at 45
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“had a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience researching, designing, or developing content delivery systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 36–40). NEC agrees. See Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). Because it is presently uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’427 patent, we adopt the above articulation of the level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “equipment specification information” First, Peloton contends that we should interpret the term equipment specification information to mean “an identifier for identifying the user equipment” because in several figures of the ’427 patent, SIP messages include SIP URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers) associated with the user requesting the content. See Pet. 9 (emphasis omitted). NEC disagrees with Peloton’s proposed construction and argues that “this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 12. NEC contends that no particular construction is necessary because the term is not relevant to the contested issues in the Petition. See id. Based on the preliminary evidence, we agree with NEC that the term has its ordinary and customary meaning, but we need not construe the term explicitly at this stage. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,769,427
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.