• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot At Tel Aviv University, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,342,998
• Twinstrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2024 · IPR2022-01400 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds because the prior-art combinations did not teach key limitations of claims 1, 17, and 29.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered these arguments on the full trial record, we find Patent Owner has the better position because Petitioner’s showing that element 1(b) is taught by Schmitt is unpersuasive. We begin with Patent Owner’s argument concerning the distinction between the cfDNA molecules and the duplex tag comprising the molecular barcode found in the text of claim 1. Element 1(a) recites “a population of cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) molecules.” Ex. 1001, 61:7–9. Element 1(b) recites “tagging a plurality of the cfDNA molecules in the population” of element 1(a) “with duplex tags comprising molecular barcodes to produce tagged parent polynucleotides . . . wherein the duplex tags are attached to both ends of a added). We agree with Patent Owner and credit the testimony of its declarant that this claim language distinguishes the duplex tags from the ends of the cfDNA molecule to which they are attached. Resp. 8; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 38–39, 60, 61. That is, the duplex tag is not part of the cfDNA molecule itself, but rather is “attached to both the ends” of that molecule by “tagging” it as recited in element 1(b). We also agree with Patent Owner that given this distinction, claim 1 does not encompass Schmitt’s hybrid embodiment. Resp. 18–20. As Petitioner notes, “[i]n Schmitt’s hybrid-tag embodiment, the strands are grouped based on the combination of the short n-mer barcode and the end of the target DNA.” Pet. 11; see Resp. 17 (“[T]he combination of the endogenous shear sequence and exogenous 3-mer sequence together provide the SMI used for grouping and matching in Schmitt’s DCS process.”). Petitioner and its declarant illustrate the grouping in Schmitt’s hybrid embodiment with the following diagram. Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96–98. Petitioner’s diagram shows the PCR products produced from sequencing a “Target DNA” molecule that has been tagged with 3-mers X and Y according to Schmitt’s hybrid embodiment. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 98 (describing diagram). A portion of the endogenous sequence of the DNA molecule labeled L and R is used in combination with the 3-mer sequence to group the resulting strands into two families labeled the “X+L→R+Y Family” and the “R+Y→X+L Family.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 98; Ex. 2015 ¶ 62 (explaining that Petitioner’s diagram shows that “the relied upon hybrid SMI sequences of Schmitt include sequence from the sample DNA molecule not contained in the adapter or the duplex tags”). SMIs, differently label the strands and therefore are the recited “duplex tags.” See Pet. 27–28 (“duplex tags comprise both the fragment DNA end sequences and a shorter n-mer tag”) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted). However, we credit Dr. Quackenbush’s testimony that end sequences L and R are not “attached to both ends” of the cfDNA molecule by “tagging” it as recited in element 1(b). See Ex. 2015 ¶ 59–62 (explaining that Schmitt’s hybrid SMI sequences include a portion of the sample DNA molecule, which is “not contained in adapter molecules or duplex tags that are attached to the DNA molecules”). Rather, end sequences L and R are the pre-existing, endogenous ends of that molecule. Id. Thus, Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability does not account for the distinction the claim language draws between the cfDNA molecule and the duplex tags. Petitioner’s argument that the ’306 patent defines “duplex tag” as a” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “That is, although Meyer teaches that its particular protocol results in 40–60% tagging efficiency, Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Meyer’s tagging efficiency to apply to Schmitt’s DCS method when used with Narayan’s sequencing of cfDNA. For example, the Petition does not address the differences between Meyer’s adapters and Schmitt’s adapters and how those differences affect the tagging efficiency. Meyer’s barcodes comprise “single self-hybridized palindromic oligonucleotides, carrying an Srf I restriction site in the middle (GCCCGGGC), a sequence tag at the 3’ end and the reverse complementary tag sequence at the 5’ end.” Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. Schmitt, on the other hand, teaches a “hybrid method” of tagging that uses a combination of the sheared ends of the DNA fragments and a “shorter n-mer tag (such as 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or more degenerate or semi degenerate bases) in the adaptor.” Ex. 1083 ¶ 30. sticky-end adapter-DNA litigation to be even more efficient than Meyer’s blunt-end adapter-DNA ligation” is also unpersuasive. See Pet. 60–61. The KAPA data sheet discloses sticky-end adapter DNA ligation, but KAPA teaches that only 0.5 to 15% tagging efficiency is expected when the starting sample is 100 pg–100 ng of “high quality DNA.” Ex. 1015, 4. Thus, the KAPA data suggests that the use of sticky-end adapters, such as what Schmitt discloses, does not in and of itself teach or suggest the tagging efficiency limitations. Moreover, the record shows that tagging efficiency depends on a variety of other factors, including the quality of the input DNA. The KAPA data sheet states that tagging efficiency “can be significantly lower for DNA of lower quality.” Ex. 1015, 4. Fisher also explains that “the efficiency of adaptor ligation varies between samples, probably because of variation in input DNA quality.” Ex. 1031, 5–6. Petitioner’s argument that the DNA the KAPA data sheet refers to as “lower quality” is “from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (‘FFPE’) samples (well known for having chemically damaged DNA)” is unavailing. See Reply 25–26 (citing Ex. 1098 ¶¶ 96–98). First, neither Petitioner, nor its declarant, address the similar teaching in Fisher. Second, even if the specific type of lower quality DNA in the KAPA data sheet is different, the salient point, i.e., that tagging efficiency depends on DNA quality, remains unrebutted. This is significant because Petitioner does not sufficiently address how the quality of the cfDNA of Narayan compares to the quality of the genomic DNA samples of Meyer and Schmitt or how that would affect the expected tagging efficiency. Petitioner’s assertion that “significant quantities of cfDNA could be isolated from blood samples” (see Reply 26), fact that a significant quantity of cfDNA could be obtained does not show that the quality of that DNA is similar such that a POSA using such would have expected to achieve a tagging efficiency similar to that in Meyer.” slip op. at 40

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied

    “We are not persuaded. First, this is an inappropriate new argument. The Petition presents a different mapping, alleging that the “duplex tag” comprises both the endogenous end sequence of the cfDNA molecule and the 3-mer barcode of Schmitt’s hybrid tag embodiment. Pet. 27 (“the duplex tags comprise both the fragment DNA end sequences and ‘a shorter n-mer tag’ to serve as ‘unique molecular identifiers’”) (quoting Ex. 1083 ¶ 30, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162–163); see also Tr. 62:13–63:19 (Petitioner’s counsel noting he was unaware of any explicit statement in the Petition that Schmitt’s duplex tag comprised just the 3-mer without the end sequence). Nor did Petitioner regarding element 1(b). See Reply 8–10. Rather, consistent with the mapping in the Petition, the Reply identifies “Schmitt’s hybrid tags,” i.e., the combination of the endogenous end sequence and the n-mer, as the duplex tags in element 1(b). See Reply 8 (urging that “duplex tags” are “tags that differently label the complementary strands,” which “is precisely what Schmitt’s hybrid tags do”). Because this argument was not previously presented, Patent Owner has not been afforded a sufficient opportunity to address it. Thus, Petitioner’s new argument excluding the end sequences in Schmitt’s hybrid tag embodiment from the alleged “duplex tags comprising molecular barcodes” has been waived. Second, even if we were to consider it on the merits, Petitioner’s new mapping for element 1(b) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s allegations for element 1(e). Element 1(e) recites “reducing or tracking redundancy” in sequence reads “using at least sequencing information from the molecular barcodes of the duplex tags to determine distinct cfDNA molecules.” Ex. 1001, 61:26–30. For these limitations, the Petition points to Schmitt’s grouping of reads into families based on their SMI and asserts that Schmitt determines distinct cfDNA molecules based on “the complementary nature of the SMI on the two strands of the duplex.” See Pet. 30–32 (internal quotations omitted). Thus, like Petition’s mapping for element 1(b), Petitioner’s allegations for element 1(e) rely on a duplex tag that includes both the 3-mer and the end sequence of the cfDNA molecule. Petitioner has not sufficiently explained, much less shown by a preponderance of the evidence, that Schmitt teaches or suggests the limitations in element 1(e) based on its new mapping of the 3-mer alone as duplex tags.” slip op. at 25

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We do not rely on any of these exhibits in rendering our decision on Petitioner’s grounds. Therefore, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1069, 1074, 1078, 1079, and 1085–1088.” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 11,149,306 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,149,306
• 3M Company v. Bay Materials, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2022-01214 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7–11, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish the flexural-modulus limitation over Hinz and the Durasoft data sheets, with or without Sun.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties disagree about the appropriate definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan and, in particular, whether that artisan would have had experience or familiarity with processing “thermoformable polymer sheets” to form “orthodontic and dental appliances.” Resp. 8; see Pet. 10–11 n.1 (disagreeing with that proposition). We agree with Patent Owner for the following reasons.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Conflicting Opinion Testimony Petitioner’s own witness, Dr. Giacomin, opines that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with various machines and methods that would have enabled the thermoforming of multilayer dental sheets into shapes that conform with the teeth (i.e., creating a dental appliance).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 25. Nonetheless, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s evidence that Dr. Giacomin himself lacks that qualification. Compare Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 1–9, 17 & n.1), with Reply (nowhere contesting that evidence). Petitioner also leaves uncontested Patent Owner’s evidence that Dr. Osswald, by contrast, possesses “the required experience” with dental appliances, including thermoforming processes for their manufacture. Compare Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 2–8; Ex. 2007), with Reply (nowhere contesting that evidence). Dr. Giacomin possesses excellent qualifications in the field of polymer rheology, but on this record, he demonstrates no, or inadequate, familiarity or experience with methods of thermoforming dental appliances from polymeric materials, which by his own admission is a minimum qualification of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 1–11 (statement of qualifications), App’x A (curriculum vitae). Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Osswald, by contrast, has “experience with polymer materials used in dental appliances” and “shaping operations, including thermoforming” processes for such applications. Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 5, 6. Against that backdrop, where the two witnesses’ opinions differ about the level of ordinarily skill in the art of thermoforming processes for dental appliances at the time of the invention, we credit Dr. Osswald’s opinions over those of Dr. Giacomin. We take note, moreover, that Dr. Osswald’s opinions would not change under Petitioner’s somewhat different definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2006 ¶ 14.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We construe only terms in controversy and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). No claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In the absence of explanation by Petitioner, we are left to wonder why either of those two ranges reported in Sun would have been recognized as applicable, without modification, to the three-layer dental splint of Hinz. Starting with a commercially-available, two-layer sheet of hard-soft PC-TPU or hard-soft PETG-TPU thermoplastic polymers, Hinz bonds a third layer, consisting of hard PC or hard PETG, to the soft TPU layer of the two-layer material by a process of thermoforming. No prior art reference explains how that process would have been understood to affect the overall flexural modulus of the resulting three-layer, hard-soft-hard composition. Petitioner does not supply an adequate reason for combining Sun’s preferred flexural modulus range, reported for Sun’s dental appliances at a temperature of 23˚ C, to dental splints formed by Hinz from fundamentally different polymers and a fundamentally different process. See Pet. 65–68 (entirety of four-page analysis on this ground); Resp. 32–38; Sur-reply 7–14 (well-supported explanation of those fundamental differences); Reply 8–16 (Petitioner’s unpersuasive responsive positions). The flexural modulus of Sun’s dental appliance not only is temperature dependent but also varies with the flexural strength of the polymeric material at hand. Ex. 1018 ¶ 12. Too late in the Reply, Petitioner raises fact-intensive reasons why those differences would not have mattered to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Reply 8–16. In any event, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner glosses over “[f]undamental differences” between the polymers and processes of Sun and Hinz, differences that “are central to [the] motivation to combine inquiry” and undercut Petitioner’s view that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood either of Sun’s flexural modulus ranges to apply, without modification, to Hinz’s polymers and process. Resp. 33 (quoting Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)) (first alteration in original); see Sur-reply 8–16 (Patent Owner’s persuasive arguments and evidence on point). The ground based on Sun is deficient for the above reasons.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,946,630 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,946,630
• Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00735 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable because the Snavely-based combinations did not teach a “primary oblique image” as construed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s construction of the term “primary oblique image” as “a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” This construction is supported by the ’518 patent Specification, which includes a listing of “Terminology” that contains the following definition for the term “primary oblique image”: Primary oblique image—a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images. The primary oblique image can also be a master image. Ex. 1001, 6:25:31–34.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the proposed combination includes a “primary oblique image” as properly construed. As discussed above, we construe the term “primary oblique image” to require “a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” See supra § II.A.1(b). In its papers, Petitioner does not demonstrate that Snavely discloses a “primary oblique image” that can be considered “in front of” the other displayed images. To the contrary, we agree with and find credible Dr. Bajaj’s testimony that the “main view” of Snavely’s Figure 5, which Petitioner points to as the “primary oblique image,” is “behind the other displayed images in overlay panes,” such as the information pane, thumbnail pane, and map pane, and “therefore, necessarily cannot be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 60; see Ex. 1004, Fig. 5; PO Resp. 26. Our conclusion is also supported by the fact that Snavely refers to the information, map, and thumbnail panes as “overlay panes.” Ex. 1004, 5 (“The components of this window are the main view, which fills the window, and three overlay panes: an information and search pane on the left, a thumbnail pane along the bottom, and a map pane in the upper-right corner.”). We agree with and find credible Dr. Bajaj’s testimony that Snavely’s description of these panes as “overlay” panes confirms that “the main view image is behind the images shown in the map pane, the information pane, and the thumbnail pane.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 61 (citing Ex. 1004, 5). Additional support is found in Dr. Forsyth’s deposition testimony, where he explained that one of ordinary skill would have understood “overlay panes” to be “on top of” a main display:” slip op. at 38

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “E. Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude Patent Owner filed a Motion to Strike certain portions of the Third Munford Declaration (Exhibit 1020) and its Appendices, which Petitioner submitted to show that Snavely and Irani were publicly accessible before the critical date of the ’518 patent. Paper 30. Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude certain Appendices of the Second Munford Declaration (Exhibit 1016) and Third Munford Declaration, which Petitioner also submitted to show public accessibility of Snavely and Irani. Paper 35. Because, as discussed above, we find that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Snavely, Balfour, Irani, and Yelton, we need not reach whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Snavely and Irani were publicly accessible before the critical date. We, therefore, deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,593,518 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,593,518
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00633 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable because Lurie, alone or combined with the other cited references, did not teach proactive task retrieval; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Based on the fully developed trial record, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “proactively” and, therefore, we construe this claim term as initiating change rather than reacting to events (i.e., not being told to act or not reactionary). Beginning with the intrinsic evidence, both parties appear to agree that the ’275 patent does not define the claim term “proactively” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. For example, during the oral hearing, counsel for Amazon indicated that the specification of the ’275 patent provides “some examples” of what it means to act “proactively,” but it does not provide a lexicographic definition. See Tr. 7:8–11:21. In the same vein, during oral argument, counsel for Swarm stated that “[w]e haven’t advocated for anything other than the plain and ordinary meaning of proactively.” Id. at 34:23–24. We” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Petition, Amazon argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and about five years of industry or academic research experience in parallel or distributed computing, system architecture, or an equivalent.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–44). Amazon further argues that “[a] post-graduate degree or additional formal education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. In its Patent Owner Response, Swarm does not address the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. Accordingly, based on the fully developed trial record, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. That is, we adopt Amazon’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’275 patent and the asserted prior art. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Amazon’s declarant, Dr. Lowenthal, provides testimony that supports our finding above. In his supplemental declaration in support of the Reply, Dr. Lowenthal testifies that, “[c]ertainly, Lurie initially sends an initial notification of ‘one or more tasks . . . becoming available.’ After that, . . . TCW [270] will obtain and process a first task.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 58 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶ 86) (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 87, 88) (second two alterations in original). He also testifies that the “one initial notification . . . kick[s] off the procedure” because it “informs all registered TCWs [270] that one or more tasks are available.” Id. ¶ 59. We credit the aforementioned testimony of Dr. Lowenthal’s because it is consistent with the disclosures in Lurie that we highlight above, most notably the kickoff notification.” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “As we explain in the claim construction section above, we accord the claim term “proactively” an ordinary and customary meaning of initiating change rather than reacting to events (i.e., not being told to act or not reactionary). See supra Section II.A. Contrary to our construction, Lurie’s TCW 270 only takes a task after receiving a kickoff notification and, therefore, it is not acting proactively. That is, Lurie’s TCW 270 reacts to the kickoff notification that a task is available or otherwise appears in object exchange repository 662 rather than initiates change by seeking a task from object exchange repository 662 without being notified to do so.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,592,275 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,592,275
• Chanel, Inc. v. Molo Design, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2023 · IPR2022-00543 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–11, 13, 16, 18, 20–25, and 27 were not shown unpatentable under any of three §103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish the claimed foldable supports and fastener arrangement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues, with support from its declarant, Mr. Rake, that one skilled in the art during the relevant time frame “would have a bachelor’s degree and at least two years of relevant experience working as an industrial designer, interior designer, furniture designer, architect, or other similar professional” and “would be knowledgeable regarding furniture design and/or the design of exhibit and display systems, and would have a general understanding of related manufacturing processes.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–44). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal, and Patent Owner’s declarant agrees with it. Ex. 2010 ¶ 34 (“I believe this is an accurate definition of a POSITA and have used this for my analysis.”); see also Pet. Reply 1 (“The parties agree on the POSITA and level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’366 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Because the issue of whether Petitioner has proven unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence can be resolved without expressly construing the claim terms “supports,” “self-supporting,” “operable,” and “flaccid,” we reject the notion that Petitioner somehow violated our rules by not developing a more explicit construction of those terms. In addition, because Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that we need not formally construe any of the terms to address the issues in this proceeding or offer a competing construction, we need not construe any of these terms. See, e.g., Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Even if we consider an argument that claim 1 would have been obvious without considering whether a POSITA would have been motivated to fold the SoftHousing end panels into a tubular configuration, we would not find that argument convincing. None of the prior art at issue here discloses partition end panels that are semi-circular as in the design the ’366 patent discloses, much less flexible panels folded into that configuration. Instead, both SoftHousing and Arens disclose end panels having unfolded, planar surfaces, and the Velcro reference does not teach partitions at all. See Ex. 1005, 2; Ex. 1006, 11; Ex. 1007, 2; Ex. 1012, 2; Ex. 1013, Fig. 3; PO Resp. 34–35; Ex. 2010 ¶ 124. Further, merely adding the Velcro teachings from SoftHousing III, Arens, or the Velcro reference to the planar end panels of SoftHousing would not necessarily satisfy the claim limitation requiring a fastener capable of securing supports in a tubular configuration, and Petitioner does not explain how that modification meets that aspect of the fasteners limitation without the premise that a POSITA would have been motivated to form a tubular configuration. See Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–88, 118). The cited declarant testimony repeats the same language from the Petition when addressing why modifying SoftHousing to include fasteners would have been obvious (i.e., the fasteners would have been obvious only when a POSITA already “wanted” to form the tubular configuration). See Ex. 1003 ¶ 118. Neither the Petition nor supporting declarant set forth a coherent argument that adding fasteners capable of securing a folded support in a tubular configuration would have been obvious merely by adding Velcro to the end panels of the honeycomb core in SoftHousing’s partitions.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “4. Conclusion We find that Petitioner’s proposed modifications to and combination of SoftHousing I, SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, and Velcro do not disclose all of the limitations of independent claim 1. We find that we need not reach Patent Owner’s alleged objective indicia of nonobviousness arguments because even if Patent Owner submitted no such evidence or failed to establish a nexus or any persuasive objective indicia evidence, our conclusion as to the obviousness of claim 1 would not change. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’366 patent is unpatentable as obvious based on the combination of SoftHousing I, SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, and Velcro.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,866,366 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,866,366
• Restem, LLC. v. Jadi Cell, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01535 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not proven unpatentable: Majore did not anticipate claims 1–13 and 15, and the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 132, 133. Importantly, however, Dr. Olson does not cite anything to support his opinion that the ordinary artisan would have known that MSCs could be cultured to be renewable from subepithelial UC tissue. Nor does Dr. Olson explain why the artisan would have had this understanding aside from simply stating it. Majore uses the word “subepithelial” only once to explain that primitive stem cells are “distributed in subepithelial and intervascular regions,” but this does not teach what Dr. Olson asserts. Accordingly, Dr. Olson’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–16 (finding that an expert’s conclusory assertions that repeat the proposition for which they are offered without “any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning” in support are “conclusory and unsupported, add[] little to the conclusory assertion[s] for which [they are] offered to support, and is” slip op. at 52

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “21 The parties do not dispute that the preamble’s recitation of “isolated cell” serves as a limitation to claim 1 as it provides antecedent basis for its recitation later in the body of the claim. Accordingly, we treat the preamble as limiting. “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” slip op. at 31

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “[JUDGE NEWMAN:] So if -- if the comparison is possible, why did you not present evidence of that comparison? MR. FITZPATRICK: We --we’ve had the -- we had this discussion with our -- with our expert, and our conclusion was that it’s just not -- it wasn’t necessary. The conclusion was that the -- the evidence that’s in the -- in the prior art references, including the fact that it clearly practices the exact same steps as the claims, that was sufficient to -- and would anticipate or render obvious the claims. That’s the only reason we didn’t present evidence -- our own evidence.” slip op. at 38

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (alteration in original). We agree that an ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the teachings of analogous references for information, but to establish obviousness, a party must show that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale to explain why the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the isolated cell with the specific marker profile or why the artisan would have looked to the cited references themselves out of the wide range of references available in the art.” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 9,803,176 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,803,176
• Streck, Inc. / Streck LLC v. Ravgen, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01577 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 55–61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89–92, 94, 126–130, 132, and 133 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “III. MOTIONS Motion to Strike (Paper 50) Petitioner filed a motion to strike portions of Patent Owner’s Sur- Reply. Paper 50. Patent Owner opposes the motion. Paper 53. Petitioner contends Patent Owner raised new argument about Exhibit 1014 (a paper authored by Dr. Patterson), which was submitted with the filing of the Petition but only cited by Patent Owner for the first time in its Sur-Reply. Paper 50, 1–3; PO Sur-Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1014). According to Petitioner, Patent Owner presents new argument about the reversibility of certain crosslinks caused by formaldehyde, cites new experimental data (in Ex. 1014, Fig. 2.1), and argues such matters would have been known before any possible priority date of the ’277 patent. Paper 50, 1–3. Moreover, Petitioner argues, the untimeliness of Patent Owner’s arguments about Exhibit 1014 prevented the exhibit’s author, Dr. Patterson, from addressing them to provide explanation or context. Id. at 2–3. For the reasons given below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to strike. First, we find that Patent Owner’s arguments on Exhibit 1014 are, on balance, responsive to issues raised by Petitioner in its Reply. It is true that Petitioner submitted Exhibit 1014 with its Petition and that Patent Owner did not cite it until its Sur-Reply. However, the points raised by Patent Owner about Exhibit 1014 respond to certain of Petitioner’s arguments raised for the first time in its Reply. For example, Petitioner argued a POSA would not have been concerned about formaldehyde’s use (such as cross-linking disclosed in Heinmoller that Patent Owner cited in its Response) and that those concerns arose only after the supposed priority date of the ’277 patent. 88 Pet. Reply 8–9. Patent Owner’s citation of Exhibit 1014 is responsive on such points (e.g., it discusses cross-linking with formaldehyde’s use), it published in 2000 and is thus earlier than some references Petitioner argued were too late to evidence a POSA’s knowledge, and, lastly, it was authored by Dr. Patterson and arguably called into question the credibility of rebuttal opinions he offered about the state of a POSA’s knowledge on such issues. Second, Exhibit 1014 does not, ultimately, help Patent Owner as we do not rely on the portions of Exhibit 1014 cited by Patent Owner or Patent Owner’s argument about them. As discussed in our analysis, if cross-linking (as reported in Heinmoller or, for that matter, Exhibit 1014) was a perceived problem, Dr. Patterson provides a credible explanation how it could be and likely was addressed by Pertl.54 Supra Section II(G)(3) (citing Ex. 1047).” slip op. at 88

  • ExcludeDenied

    “by the non-designating party. See generally Paper 60. We nevertheless reviewed the designated testimony. The objections are overruled, but were also considered during review.” slip op. at 90

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on grounds advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 93

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “3. Conclusion For the reasons above, we find Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Chiu/Lee discloses “an agent that inhibits cell lysis, if cells are present” as recited in independent claims 55 and 81, and the claims depending therefrom. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that claims 55–59, 61, 68, 69, 80–86, 89, 94, and 126–130 would have been obvious over Chiu and Lee.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,277 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,277
• Medtronic Vascular, Inc. / Medtronic Galway Vascular Unlimited Company et al. v. TMT Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2023 · IPR2021-01532 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 26 not unpatentable because Petitioner failed to show motivation to combine the cited references; it denied Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Despite a lack of teaching in Lazarus to use telescoping functionality with the circumferential support structures, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Quiachon’s continuous wire frame to impart telescoping functionality to the struts, to “further improve the known attachment system in Quiachon to yield the predictable results of having a compressible and expandable device that could hold an endovascular graft open at the site of an aneurysm.” Pet. 40; see also Ex. 1003 (Chaikof Decl.) ¶¶ 146–47, 150. We are not persuaded. Like Lazarus’s circumferential support structures, Quiachon’s wire frame expands circumferentially. Compare, e.g., Ex. 1006 (Lazarus), 11:14–20 (describing circumferential support structures that expand to attach the graft to the vessel wall), with Ex. 1004 (Quiachon), 15:3–39 (describing self-expanding attachment system that provides a fluid tight seal between the graft and vessel wall). Thus, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lazarus’s longitudinal support structures into Quiachon’s attachment system to “achieve the flexibility and adjustability disclosed in Lazarus” as Petitioner asserts (Pet. 41), we find that the specific combination Petitioner proposes to reach the claimed subject matter is not supported by the record. More specifically, we agree with Patent Owner and credit Dr. Berry’s testimony that “there is no motivation that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have used telescoping members of longitudinal support structures for an attachment system that expands radially or circumferentially” to hold an endovascular graft open or achieve stent compression and expansion. Ex. 2083 (Berry Decl.) ¶¶ 116, 118; see also PO Resp. 42–43. Petitioner does not point us to anything in Lazarus or Quiachon that teaches or suggests operatively connecting the telescoping longitudinal support structures to form “a perimeter of variable length” or a “closed loop” as claimed. See, e.g., Sur-reply 5, 7 (asserting that “none of the references suggests telescoping arms configured” as “a perimeter of variable length or a closed loop”); Ex. 2084 (Chaikof Tr.), 174:20–22 (agreeing that Lazarus’s longitudinal support structures are not in a ring shape); Ex. 2124 (Chaikof Second Tr.), 76:13–77:23 (same), 78:17–79:2 (agreeing that Lazarus does not teach connecting the longitudinal support structures in an M shape). Petitioner does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated telescoping functionality into Quiachon’s wire frame, given the lack of any teaching or suggestion in Lazarus or Quiachon to use telescoping functionality in circumferentially-expanding devices like Quiachon’s wire frame.” slip op. at 27

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “(2) Analysis “[A] party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel must show: ‘(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against whom collateral estoppel is being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.’” Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s collateral estoppel argument fails at least because the same issues were not “actually litigated.” PO Resp. 65–66. The prosecution of the ’331 application is an ex parte proceeding, not an adversarial proceeding such as a district court litigation or inter partes review. Patent Owner demonstrates that “[d]eterminations made during a prior ex parte prosecution do not arise from adversarial litigation.” Id. at 66. Rather, “there is a general consensus among courts that . . . [a] patent prosecution is not an adversarial, litigation-type proceeding, but a wholly ex parte proceeding before the PTO because although the process involves preparation and defense of legal claims in a” slip op. at 41

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner, as the moving party, bears the burden of establishing that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). We determine that Patent Owner has not met its burden. Dr. Berry testified about Exhibits 1067 and 1071 at his deposition. See Ex. 1066 (Berry Tr.), 53:1–75:3, 234:13–242:2. Thus, even if the exhibits are not discussed in a brief or in a declaration, we find that they give context to the deposition testimony of record. The Board is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to the presented evidence, including based on the depth of discussion of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00053, Paper 66 at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (“[T]he Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to the evidence presented in this trial.”). Moreover, “there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012- 00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014). In view of the above, we are unpersuaded that the probative value of Exhibits 1067 and 1071 is substantially outweighed by potential prejudice or confusion of issues. Rather than excluding these exhibits, we simply give them appropriate weight in our analysis.” slip op. at 46

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan. PO Resp. 12. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is unopposed and is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’393 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,101,393 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,101,393
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2021-01445 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground because the proposed combinations did not teach adding a co-processor without communication with the controller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Both Petitioner and Patent Owner argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one or more years of experience in the design and development of parallel or distributed processing systems.” Pet. 11; see also PO Resp. 7. The parties alternatively argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and less design and development experience.” Pet. 11 (citing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62– 67); see also PO Resp. 7. We adopt the parties’ proposed formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner states that “[f]or the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes all terms as having their ordinary and customary meanings.” Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeDenied

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)). Specifically, we stated that “[p]rovided that Patent Owner timely objects to the admissibility of Petitioner’s evidence in accordance with our regulations, we will address such objection at the procedurally appropriate time.” Id. Despite our reminding the parties of the proper procedure for challenging the admissibility of evidence, Patent Owner elected not to do so. Specifically, Patent Owner did not file a timely objection, thereby giving Petitioner an opportunity to supply supplemental evidence to cure the objection. See Pet. Reply 28. Accordingly, Patent Owner forfeited its right to object to evidence, such as AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony, and, as a result, forfeited its request that we exclude the evidence. Instead of following our rules and filing a timely objection, Patent Owner argues in the Response, citing the Federal Rules of Evidence, that we should give limited weight to AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony due to a lack of authenticity. See PO Resp. 8–15. But this is no more than a disguised motion to exclude evidence. Under these circumstances where Patent Owner’s argument is premised on the Federal Rules of Evidence, we see no meaningful difference between excluding the evidence and giving it little weight. Because Petitioner did not file a timely objection to the evidence, we deny Patent Owner’s request to give AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony limited weight.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We have reviewed the specific examples cited in Patent Owner’s Response. Even if the specific examples cited by Patent Owner were valid complaints, none of them, either alone or in combination, arise to such a level that we would discount the entirety of Dr. Weissman’s testimony. That does not mean that we found all of the testimony in this proceeding, whether provided by Dr. Weissman or Dr. Nelson, credible. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration and provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. In our obviousness analysis below, we specially identify the relevant testimony provided by the parties’ declarants that we find to be credible and not credible.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,852,004 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,852,004

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.