• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01563 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Yong and Xavier because the Board found the proposed server-function combination and replication of the virtual terminal sales application obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field or equivalent coursework or experience, and one to two years of experience with mobile device applications and retail POS systems,” also noting that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33). “For purposes of the IPR proceedings related to the ’435 Patent only, [Patent Owner] does not dispute this definition.” PO Resp. 8. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proffered level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’435 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner counters that we should afford full weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony. PO Sur-reply 2. Patent Owner contends that Dr. Williams meets Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Williams surpasses the education requirement” and meets the experience requirements. Id. Addressing Petitioner’s concerns about retail technology experience, Patent Owner asserts that “Dr. Williams testified that his MBA curriculum contained coursework that included study of POS systems, particularly though case studies.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 3; Ex. 1022 16:3–7). “This is precisely the ‘more education in the [person of ordinary skill in the art] definition that can ‘supplement practical experience,’” Patent Owner argues. Id. (citing Pet. 12). Patent Owner persuades us that Petitioner’s concerns regarding Dr. Williams’s retail technology and knowledge and experience are not a basis for affording less weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with the parties’ claim construction. Grammatically, within each of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, each recitation of “the server” refers to the same “server.” Thus, according to these claims’ plain meaning, each and every recitation of “the server” refers to the same server. See Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 64 F.4th 1311, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining claim language reciting element with definite article refers to same element previously recited) (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Harari v. Lee, 655 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Likewise, according to the plain meaning of claims 10, 12, and 14, each and every recitation of “the server” in these claims refers to the same server. We construe every recitation of “the server” in claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 as referring to the same server. And we construe every recitation of “the server” in claims 10, 12, and 14 as referring to the same server.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position that it would have been “obvious to combine functions of any [of] its servers 200, 400, 500 into the same server.” E.g. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; PO Resp. 2–6, 22–25, 28–40; Pet. Reply 1–2, 7–12; PO Sur-reply 1–2, 5–15. It is undisputed that “[i]t was well-understood in the art at the time of the Critical Date that functionality of different servers can be combined in the same server.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 413); see generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. The Petition persuades us that it would have been obvious to implement this known approach in Yong’s system, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments about intentionally keeping servers separate. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; PO Resp. 2–6, 22–25, 28–40; Pet. Reply 1–2, 7–12; PO Sur-reply 1–2, 5–15. The Petition and its evidence demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying Yong’s disclosure by combining the functionalities of the servers would have produced one logical variation on Yong’s system. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–132, 412–414, 436, 442, 452, 460. As the Petition and Dr. Shamos note, Yong’s servers cooperatively perform functions of Yong’s system by communicating with one another and other system components, such that consolidating the functionality into the same server would result in that server performing all of the same functions that Yong’s servers do separately. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–132, 412–414, 436, 442, 452, 460; See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (combination of known devices according to established functions normally obvious); id. at 417 (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”). The Petition and its evidence also persuade us that such a modification would have been well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. E.g., Pet. 10, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–34, 38–42, 412, 414. As Dr. Shamos notes, Yong itself indicates that the system could use different components on its server side, disclosing that “[a] commercial transaction system (e.g., a commerce system) according to the present invention is configured to include a mobile communication terminal 100, a store POS system 200, and a mobile telecommunication system 300. More preferably, a commercial transaction server 400 and a payment server 500 may be further included.” Ex. 1010, 12:9–13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 412. On the whole, the Petition persuades us that combining the functions of Yong’s servers would have involved no more than an obvious application of a known approach with predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01528 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–19 are unpatentable: the Board found claims 15–16 anticipated or obvious and claims 17–19 obvious; it did not reach the Yong-Xavier-Cason ground for claim 17.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that the ’435 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected by those sources is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “technologies, [and he admits] that his only retail technology experience is limited to MBA case studies from the early 1990s.” Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1022, 15:20–22, 16:3–7, 17:22–23; Ex. 2010). Based on this, Petitioner advances that we “should afford little weight to Dr. Williams’ testimony.” Id. Patent Owner counters that we should afford full weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony. PO Sur-reply 2. Patent Owner contends that Dr. Williams meets Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Williams surpasses the education requirement” and meets the experience requirements. Id. at 3. Addressing Petitioner’s concerns about retail technology experience, Patent Owner asserts that “Dr. Williams testified that his MBA curriculum contained coursework that included study of POS systems, particularly though case studies.” Id. (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 3; Ex. 1022 16:3–7). “This is precisely the ‘more education’ in the [person of ordinary skill in the art] definition that can ‘supplement practical experience,’” Patent Owner argues. Id. (citing Pet. 12). Patent Owner persuades us that Petitioner’s concerns regarding Dr. Williams’s retail technology and knowledge and experience are not a basis for affording less weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the ’435 patent’s Specification supports Petitioner’s position. As Petitioner argues, the Specification’s disclosure that “[u]ser identification information may include a username, a password, [or] both a username and password” conveys that “a username, a password, [or] both a username and password” is a short, non-exhaustive list of user identification information according to the ’435 patent. Ex. 1001, 6:2–4 (emphasis added). This comports with the plain meaning of “user identification information,” which seemingly would refer to information that identifies a user. Consistent with this, the claim language does not convey any meaning of “user identification information” other than its plain meaning. See, e.g., id. at 24:7–9. Accordingly, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s suggestion that limitation 16a’s “user identification information” requires a username, a password, or both. PO Resp. 72; PO Sur-reply 30. Instead, we conclude that “user identification information” encompasses information that identifies a user.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenPetitioner expert creditedUnpatentable

    “Weighing all of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has shown that Fletchall discloses performing all of limitations 15h–15j’s actions by the same server, specifically payment server 130. For example, Petitioner persuades us that Fletchall discloses payment server 130 performing the actions of limitations 15h and 15i: “retrieving . . . payment information to complete the transaction” and “completing . . . the transaction based on the payment information.” Ex. 1001, 23:43–24:2; Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:35–49, 11:3–12, 12:42–45, 13:9–14, 13:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 199–204, 206–208, 210; Ex. 1001, 10:59–11:3, Fig. 2B). Petitioner’s evidence also shows that Fletchall discloses limitation 15j’s “transmitting . . . a confirmation receipt to the mobile phone in response to completion of payment for the transaction” by payment server 130 on its own. Ex. 1001, 24:3–5; Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1008, 9:26–32, 11:57–61; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 213–214). For example, Petitioner cites Fletchall’s disclosure of at least one embodiment in which “the electronic receipt is generated by the payment server (130) and provided to the transaction module (106b) of the mobile POS application (106).” Ex. 1008, 9:26–29; Pet. 27. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates that Fletchall discloses performing all of limitations 15h–15j by payment server 130. This showing is not diminished by Patent Owner’s observation that the Petition mentions Fletchall’s product database 121 when discussing limitation 15j. PO Sur-reply 27 n.12 (citing Pet. 26–27). In the passages Petitioner cites, Fletchall contains multiple, alternative disclosures about creating and sending a receipt. Ex. 1008, 9:26–32, 11:57–61; Pet. 27. For example, Fletchall contains (1) a disclosure that a receipt can be generated and transmitted by payment server 130 on its own (Ex. 1008, 9:26–29) and (2) an alternate disclosure that “[t]he electronic receipt may be generated by the product database (121) in cooperation with the payment server (130) and provided to the transaction module 106(b) of the mobile POS application (106)” (id. at 9:29–32). As Dr. Shamos notes, Fletchall also discloses that “[t]he electronic receipt may be generated by the payment server.” Ex. 1008, 11:19–20; Ex. 1002 ¶ 213. Immediately following this disclosure, Fletchall describes handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 and product database 121 working in cooperation as an alternative to handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 on its own: The electronic receipt may be generated by the payment server, by the product database in cooperation with the payment server and/or by a mobile application installed on the mobile device directly. Once generated, the electronic receipt may be sent to the mobile device to be stored in a memory or in a storage device of the mobile device. Ex. 1008, 11:19–25 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s reliance on Fletchall’s disclosure of handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 on its own supports Petitioner’s case, regardless of Fletchall’s alternate disclosure of handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 in cooperation with product database 121.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · IPR2022-01564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Keith; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground over Hanson and Keith.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure,” and the test “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” of that application. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. But, “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.” slip op. at 33

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

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.”). slip op. at 13

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2022). “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) (2012) (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 the 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).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedRehearing granted
  PTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing

  On rehearing, the Board held claim 3 unpatentable as obvious over Eray-WO799, revising the final written decision’s outcome for that claim.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “As stated in our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art and found that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Dec. 6–7 (citing Pet. 8; PO Resp. 18). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Daniel van der Weide, supported Petitioner’s definition, which was adopted for this proceeding. Ex. 1003 ¶ 25. Dr. van der Weide defined himself as “a person of more than ordinary skill in the art during the relevant timeframe” because “[b]y 2010, [he] held a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, and [he] had at least” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,165,240
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01239 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 12–14, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Laracey and Jogu, with Tang or Dorsey added for claims 17 and 18, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payments,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior” slip op. at 11

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

    “agreed to construe the claim term “payment gateway” as a “server or collection of servers for settling a payment.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1016, 2). Petitioner further contends that the parties are disputing the constructions of the claim terms “e-purse,” e-purse applet,” and “application” in the District Court Case, but the differences between the proposed constructions need not be resolved for this proceeding because its asserted grounds of unpatentability satisfy both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s proposed constructions.9 Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1016, 4–5). Petitioner, however, applies its proposed construction in its arguments. See Pet. 29. 9 In the District Court Case, Petitioner proposed that “e-purse” should be construed as “software that stores electronic financial information, including electronic value, in a local portable device,” while Patent Owner proposed was adopted in the District Court Case, as well as in another proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas. PO Resp. 11 (citing RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20-cv-274-JRG, 2021 WL 5357465, at *6-*9 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2021); RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00916-ADA, Dkt. 100 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2022)). Patent Owner argues that because the parties agree that an e-purse must be “software” that “stores financial information in a local device,” “[t]he Board need not resolve the distinction between the parties’ proposals for this proceeding because Petitioner fails to show that Laracey discloses ‘an electronic purse (e-purse) maintained locally in the mobile device’ under the agreed portions of the construction.” Id. at 11–12. We agree that the differences between the two proposed constructions are minimal. On the full record before us, however, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why the proper construction of “e-purse” requires that the stored financial information include electronic value and that the software is in a local portable device. Therefore, we adopt the district court’s construction of “e-purse” as “software that stores electronic financial information in a local device” for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “does rely on Laracey’s stored value account alone as the claimed e-purse, we disagree that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Laracey’s stored value account is software. As noted above, Mr. Smith testifies that “a stored value account was well known prior to the ’046 patent and was commonly stored in a form of secured memory and contained data representing an transaction” and “Laracey’s stored value account would have been understood to be software located in memory within a mobile device that contained financial information including data representing an amount of money (e.g., a balance) useable for purchases.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 100. In contrast, Dr. Weaver testifies that “an ‘account’ like the PetPlace Gift account is not software. Instead, it is simply a visualization of a collection of information. Laracey simply displays the gift card account balance 884n on the mobile phone 102 after that account balance has been received from the Transaction Management System (TMS) 130.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 56. Weighing the competing testimony of Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver, we credit Mr. Smith’s testimony as more persuasive evidence. Dr. Weaver does not explain adequately why “a visualization of a collection of information” is not software, or, more importantly, why displaying an account balance on the mobile phone does not involve software.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on the full record before us, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden of establishing that the combination of Laracey and Jogu discloses the “verifying” limitations of claims 1 and 12. c) The Remaining Aspects of Petitioner’s Contentions Patent Owner does not offer any arguments specifically addressing the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 12. PO Resp. 13–32. We need not set forth formal findings as to the undisputed assertions by Petitioner that the combination of Laracey and Jogu discloses or suggests these limitations. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., 759 F. App’x 917, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is ‘not required to address undisputed matters’ or arguments about limitations with which it was never presented.” (quoting In re Nuvasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Also, we cautioned Patent Owner “that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 9; cf. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”). Nevertheless, we have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 12 and find that the combination of Laracey and Jogu discloses these limitations as set forth by Petitioner. See Pet. 14–29, 32–33, 42–47, 52–54. d) Conclusion For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable over the combination of Laracey and Jogu.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,600,046 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,600,046
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “‘It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.’” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. We agree with Petitioner there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. We find that the disclosure of the ’653 application—limited to general teachings of a smart card, an operating system, and a smart card manager—is insufficient to show possession of limitation [1(j)]. See Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. As we explained above, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571−72. The ’653 Application contains no disclosure of replacing applications, even if the disclosure might render such replacing obvious, it is not sufficient to show the possession required to establish entitlement to a priority date. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’724 patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than March 4, 2012.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that “[t]he parties agree on the level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for all terms not expressly construed below,” and indicates that in parallel District Court litigation, the parties agreed to claim construction for the term “emulator device” to mean “hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that the term “application” should be construed to mean “‘software program suitable for being executed on a portable device,’” but that the “distinction between the parties’ respective proposals need not be resolved for this proceeding.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner finally contends that the phrase “a portion of or in entirety” in each independent claim means “in its entirety or partially,” but not both. Id. at 9. Patent Owner submits that “[t]he parties agree that the Board should construe ‘emulator device’ as ‘hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.’” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner “does not believe that any other terms require construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding.” Id. We apply the agreed upon constructions above, but otherwise find that no express constructions are necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that, even if the applications were stored in “generic memory” as Patent Owner contends, Zhu provides adequate security and would not undermine Petitioner’s motivation to combine. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380 (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”). Indeed, Zhu addresses the problem Patent Owner contends it would cause in the combination.3 As Zhu 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should be precluded from discussing Zhu’s encryption embodiment because it was not raised in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. The claims do not recite anything about how the data should be stored. Thus, it is not surprising that the Petition did not address it. Patent Owner raised the teaching away argument regarding the security of the data. See PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner relies on the exact same mapping, same motivation, and same arguments why Zhu accounted for certain limitations. See Reply 4–11. Petitioner’s Reply merely explained that Zhu did address the problem Patent Owner contended would “teach away” from the combination. Indeed, Patent Owner was aware of Zhu’s teachings and addressed them in their Patent Owner Response. The Federal recognizes, “[l]oading one of the smart card applications already resident on the smart card to another memory location on the mobile device can provide sufficient memory for the selected smart card application, but can also create a security problem.” Ex. 1006 (Zhu), 3:25–34. To address this problem, Zhu proposes encrypting these applications in generic memory which “reduces the possibility of unauthorized access to the information.” Id. at 3:59–61, 8:30–55, 9:28–33; Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6. Although acknowledging this disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, testifies that Zhu’s encryption is inadequate and that encryption would have certain drawbacks. See Ex. 2002 (Weaver Decl.) ¶ 69. We find this testimony, which directly contradicts the teachings of Zhu that encryption is an adequate solution, lacks sufficient support to be entitled to much weight. Dr. Weaver provides no citations to support his contention that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would find encryption so inadequate or problematic as he now contends. Moreover, we find that Dr. Weaver’s testimony on cross examination provides an additional, independent basis to give this testimony little weight. On cross examination, Dr. Weaver contended that there was nothing uniquely inadequate about the particular encryption scheme disclosed in Zhu, but rather that his “opinion was more general, that encryption schemes known in the 2012 time frame were all breakable with computing power and time,” and thus, inadequate Circuit has explained that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding Zhu’s encryption are proper. for storing payment applications in a mobile device’s general memory. Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 26:11–23; see also id. at 23:3–8 (“[D]oes encryption ever provide a sufficiently high security to permit storing payment application on a mobile device’s general memory? A. No”); 24:15–25:23 (testifying all publicly known encryption schemes in 2012 were breakable). However, when confronted with the fact that the ’724 patent discloses storing payment application on general baseband memory using an encryption method that was breakable, id. at 26:24–29:7, Dr. Weaver testified that this encryption method was sufficient to allow storing payment applications in general baseband memory even though it was “not perfectly secure,” id. at 29:8–14. Dr. Weaver provides no explanation or rationale why the encryption method in the ’724 patent, which he admits suffers from the same drawbacks he identified with respect to Zhu, is sufficient, but other encryption methods would not be sufficient. In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner attempts to rehabilitate Dr. Weaver’s testimony with justifications and qualifications not found in his original testimony. Sur-Reply 7–8. Yet, Dr. Weaver’s testimony discussed above was clear and unequivocal. See Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 24:15–29:14. Patent Owner made no effort to redirect his testimony at his deposition, so it cannot now do so through mere attorney argument. We find the inconsistency between Dr. Weaver’s treatment of Zhu and his treatment of similar disclosure in the ’724 patent exposes the insufficient reasoning supporting his opinions regarding the adequacy of Zhu’s use of encryption in the combination. Accordingly, we give no weight to his testimony that a skilled artisan would not have combined Zhu with a Buhot/GPC system due to security concerns. In contrast, we find the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the use of encryption and the tradeoffs with the benefits of adopting Zhu’s memory management technique, which he offers in his Supplemental Declaration, to be well-reasoned, consistent with the disclosure of Zhu and the ’724 patent4, and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. As Petitioner recognizes, “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver testified, decryption without access to the security keys is an extremely computationally intensive and time-consuming process. Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 23:17–25:2; see also Ex. 10175, 132. Mr. Smith testifies that the benefits of using encryption would be sufficient to resolve the security concerns Patent Owner raises, and that any burden of generating a certificate would be outweighed by the benefits of using encryption and the memory advantages Zhu’s technique would offer. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s security concerns would be” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,018,724 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,018,724
• Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3 and 11 were not shown unpatentable, and claim 7 was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification currently before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For purposes of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” See Pet. 8. In addition, we note that we agree with Patent Owner’s statement that the distinction between the parties’ proposals is not material to any dispute before us and we find that our determinations would be the same under either definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded that Dr. van der Weide’s cited testimony is of a nature that should lead us to give his testimony no weight. We note that Patent Owner did not move to strike or exclude Dr. van der Weide’s testimony. When considering credibility and weight of evidence below, we consider Dr. van der Weide’s testimony as a whole as well as all other evidence of record and accord it the appropriate weight.” slip op. at 7

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

    “provide an express construction of the full breadth of a claim term. “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms ... that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As such, we proceed in line with Federal Circuit case law, which “prescribes—deciding only the issues necessary to resolve the dispute before it.” Nichia Corp. v. DSS, Inc., No. 2022-1704, 2023 WL 7211097, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 2, 2023) (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). The Federal Circuit has long recognized that “[c]laim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope” and that claim construction may be required in an obviousness context “when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution in order to determine obviousness.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In order to determine whether Petitioner’s obviousness grounds meet their required burden of proof, we need not expressly state the full scope of this claim term. Thus, we are within our authority to proffer a construction that determines the scope of a claim term in a manner sufficient to determine whether the asserted art teaches the claim. In other words, there may be other ways to meet the disputed limitation, but for the purposes of our Decision, it is proper to expressly determine a claim term’s scope only as much as is required to resolve the disputed issues before us.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “the invention(s), but rather as examples of some of the embodiments.” Id. at 25:65–26:1; see also id. at 6:18–20 (embodiments “should be construed as illustrative rather than limiting”), 5:22–24 (“non-limiting example”). The Federal Circuit has noted that “[e]mbodiments in the specification—even if there is only one embodiment—cannot limit the scope of the claims absent the patentee’s ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., 25 F.4th 960, 967 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Hill- Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). After reviewing the complete record, we see no such manifest exclusion or restriction in the ’240 patent specification. We decline Patent Owner’s request to limit the claims to the described single-frequency embodiments. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. We need not provide further express construction of this claim language for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,165,240 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,165,240
• Moleculight, Inc. v. Swift Medical Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2023 · PGR2022-00041 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were cancelled; substitute claims 21–24 and 27–38 were unpatentable as obvious, and withdrawn claims 25–26 were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the record as a whole with emphasis on the technical level the ’345 patent’s disclosure and asserted prior art, we agree with Patent Owner that a degree in physics and/or optics rather than engineering could be sufficient. We disagree, however, that “at least two years work experience” is unclear. “At least two years work experience” refers to two or more years of experience working in the field of design, operation, and functioning of imaging systems. We, thus, determine that that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering, physics, or optics with relevant coursework, and the equivalent of at least two years of work experience in the design, operation, and functioning of imaging systems, amounting to familiarity with concepts related to illumination and detection schemes for optical imaging systems. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “For purposes of this decision, we determine that express claim construction is unnecessary. Our decision here would be the same whether based on plain and ordinary meaning or based on the various alternatives Petitioner presents when addressing claim construction. Pet. 9–14.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “The matter now before us is distinguishable from Xerox. As we explain below, Petitioner establishes unpatentability of the amended claims by extensively citing evidence including the prior art at issue. Petitioner and Dr. Georgakoudi properly map the Patent Owner’s amended claims to the explicit teachings of the asserted art. Sur-Reply 1–2. Thus, the position of Petitioner and Dr. Georgakoudi is not unduly conclusory. Rather, Dr. Georgakoudi’s testimony is generally credible because it is consistent with and tied closely to the teachings of the cited art. Thus, when choosing whether or not to cite Dr. Georgakoudi’s testimony and consider whether or not it is credible with respect to any given issue, we do so while considering the record as a whole.” slip op. at 12

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

    “5. Reason to Combine We first address the combination of Petit and Fawzy . Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Petit’s long pass filter with Fawzy’s imaging apparatus. Opp. 8. Petitioner’s argument is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Both Fawzy and Petit teach devices for capturing and analyzing images of dermatological conditions based on light wavelengths reflecting off a patient’s skin. Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 89, 92; Ex. 1020 ¶ 88). The preponderance of evidence supports that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that emission filters, such as those taught by Petit, are a well-known mechanism to predictably filter out wavelengths of light that are not relevant to the imaging at hand. Id. (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 87). A person of ordinary would have understood that filtering out undesired wavelengths could avoid undesired interference. Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 44,80). Petit teaches a long-pass filter having a cut-on wavelength of 450±25 nm. Ex. 1020 ¶ 98. Such a filter would be helpful in accomplishing Fawzy’s goal of “control[ling] optical coupling of the digital camera to capture only reflected light originating from the interaction of light from the spectral light source with an object being imaged.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 107. The combination would also be helpful for determining effective treatment as Petit teaches. Ex. 1020 ¶ 87. As such, we determine that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine Petit’s long pass filter with Fawzy’s imaging apparatus and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,266,345 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,266,345
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00848 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 41 is not shown …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 18 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52, EPRC 1:32. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “a semiconductor chip” (id. at 9:66) where “said semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction (Resp. 14) of “said semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as referring to “a semiconductor LED chip capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor LED chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 53 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 18 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’770 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 16. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’770 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 15

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Delaware held, with respect to related U.S. Patent 6,465,961, construed “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1024, 15–18). Petitioner responds that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1. We note that the language of claim 18 does not precisely match the language the District Court considered, it is substantively the same. The record supports a construction very similar to the construction the District Court adopts, and we reference the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 1024, 15– 18. We, thus, construe claim 18’s recitation that “said semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as referring to “a semiconductor LED chip that is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “The facts above are evidence of the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, because the facts tend to make the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, more probable than it would be without the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 401(a) (defining evidence as relevant “if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”). The evidence is sufficient to support publication. Meanwhile, no evidence of record suggests that Krames was not a printed publication as of June 29, 2000. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports Krames’s prior art status. Patent Owner argues that Ms. Watters “never establishes a firm date when Krames was purportedly available to the relevant public.” Resp. 21. Patent Owner bases this argument by taking a tortured reading of Ms. Watters’s statement that “[m]embers of the interested public could locate a copy of [the Proceedings] on or after June 29, 2000, the date it was catalogued.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1020, 3); see also Sur-Reply 12–13. The best understanding of Ms. Watters’s statement, in view of the context of Ms. Watters explaining the library’s cataloguing process, is that a member of the interested public had two options: the person could choose to locate the Proceedings on June 29, 2000, or the person could choose to locate the Proceedings after June 29, 2000. Thus, the statement supports public availability as of June 29, 2000.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,634,770 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,634,770
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00129 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21–40, 42–44, 47–49, 52–53, 56–59, 62–63, 65–68, 71–73, 77–78, 81–82, 85–86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In the Reply, Petitioner uses the Krames declaration (Ex. 1028) to argue, for example, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used a lower amperage than the 1.5 A dc that Patent Owner’s Response focuses on. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 22). This use of the Krames declaration is timely because it responds to an argument Patent Owner makes in the Patent Owner Response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in . . . patent owner response.”). As to relevancy and whether the Krames declaration is applicable to the facts of this case, the issues at hand are (1) whether or not a person having ordinary skill would have had reason to use the Krames LED with Begemann with a reasonable expectation of success and (2) whether or not the Krames LED is capable of outputting light at greater than about 40 milliwatts. Again, we emphasize that claim 21 does not recite a method where the LED within the recited semiconductor light source actually outputs greater than about 40 milliwatts. The Krames declaration is relevant to the facts of this case because the declaration has bearing on whether or not a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the Krames reference’s LED with Begemann’s lightbulb design. See, e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶ 22. Patent Owner argues that evidence must be relevant to motivation to combine “an LED chip from the Krames article (operating at 1.5 amps to produce 170 milliwatts of output)” but claim 21 has no “operating at 1.5 amps to produce 170 milliwatts of output” requirement. What is relevant is that Krames discloses a single chip that has the capability of outputting more or less light depending on operating conditions. Pet. Opp. 3; see also Ex. 1008, 8 (providing that Figure 12 of the Krames reference is described as illustrating “[l]ight output vs. current characteristic of a blue … 1x1 mm2 AlGaInN LED in a power package, compared to a conventional AlGaInN LED in a 5 mm lamp a package”). Because claim 21 does not require actually running the recited LED at any particular wattage or amperage, it is appropriate for the Krames declaration to rebut Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would not have considered using the Krames LED with Begemann at high amperage by explaining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered using the exact same Krames LED with Begemann at a low amperage instead and that at this lower amperage the Krames LED would generate an amount of heat that would be easily dissipated by Begemann’s lamp while still providing an optical output of “greater than about 40 milliwatts” as recited by claim 21. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008, 8). The fact that the Krames LED is configured to run at the high amperage if desired for a different application does not negate the rationale for combining the Krames LED to run at a lower amperage.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19

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

    “particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s claim construction is well-supported by the record including the reasoning provided by the California and Delaware district courts. Ex. 2002, 19–21 (California district court explaining why the “reflective layers” must be distinct layers based on how claim 8 is structured and also explaining why the amount of reflection must be non-negligible); Ex. 2003, 2, 13 (Delaware district court explaining why reflection has to be more than negligible but need not reflect more light than the light absorbed or transmitted). We, thus, agree that “first and a second reflective layers . . . 10 Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction combines various statements made by the district courts into one statement. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2002, 19–21; Ex. 2003, 2, 13). serving to reflect light emitted by said active layer” means that the “first and second reflective layers are distinct from each other and reflect more than negligible light.” We further note that the preponderance of the evidence supports that as little as one percent light reflectance is “non-negligible” in this context. Reply 4; also Ex. 1032, 188:7–14 (Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Shealy, testifying that reflection “on the order of one percent” would be more than negligible); see also Tr. 53 (counsel for Patent Owner agreeing that Dr. Shealy opined that “three percent reflection is enough to be non-negligible”).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961

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.