- Jumio Corp. v. Facetec, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00108 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–24 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We need not consider whether iProov must be named as an RPI because Patent Owner does not allege that the failure to name iProov would implicate time bar, estoppel, or anything else material to this case. Our precedential authority, SharkNinja Operating LLC et al. v. iRobot Corp., controls this case, and explains that we need not determine whether a third party is an RPI to the Petitioner because “even if it were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” IPR2020-00734, Paper 11, 18–19 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“EXERCISE OF DISCRECTION A. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in light of two co-pending district court cases. Prelim. Resp. 47–56. We addressed this same issue in our institution decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 6–9. For the same reasons we explained there, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on the related district court cases.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“f) Conclusion – Claim 1 For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Derakhshani and Tanii teaches the limitations of claim 1 and a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Derakhshani and Tanii. Our determination is not final and based only on the current record and arguments. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,693,938 - Jumio Corp. v. Facetec, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00106 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“appointment of new counsel for Petitioner and a motion to stay pending IPR(s) was denied without prejudice to being refiled once new counsel has appeared for Petitioner. Ex. 2030. In the Nevada litigation, iProov moved to stay the case pending IPR(s) in February 2025, but the court has not decided whether to grant the stay. Prelim. Resp. 57. We decline to speculate about how the district court might rule on any refiled motion to stay in the California litigation (or the pending motion to stay in the Nevada litigation). Thus, the first factor is neutral.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“framework, determining, first, “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). That first determination considers: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“contends indicate that iProov is a real party in interest to this proceeding. For example, Patent Owner points to the overlap in prior art references asserted in this Petition and the prior art references relied upon in the California and Nevada litigations. Prelim. Resp. 14–15, 18. Patent Owner also points to indemnity obligations between iProov and Petitioner. Id. at 15–16. And finally, Patent Owner emphasizes the benefit that iProov would get from this Petition. Id. at 17–18. Having reviewed these arguments and evidence of record we determine that, even in light of the issues raised by Patent Owner, Petitioner was not acting at the behest of iProov in filing this Petition and that iProov did not direct, control, or fund this Petition. Ex. 1049 ¶ 4 (counsel for Petitioner attesting that “iProov did not direct, control, or fund the Petitions. iProov did not work on the Petitions nor was it involved with the Petitions in any way. Petitioner never provided drafts of the IPR Petitions to iProov, and Petitioner never discussed the IPR Petitions or their substance with iProov.”) We, therefore, determine that iProov is not” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“between the purported ‘privy’ and the relevant other party is sufficiently close such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels.” TPG 14–15. “[T]he rationale behind § 315(b)’s preclusion provision is to prevent successive challenges to a patent by those who previously have had the opportunity to make such challenges in the prior litigation.” WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1319. Therefore, “it is important to determine whether the petitioner and the prior litigant’s relationship—as it relates to the lawsuit—is sufficiently close that it can be fairly said that the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of the patent in that lawsuit.” Id.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,776,471 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00069 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that the prior art teaches creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, as claims 1–18 and 21–23 require.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification describes only fingerprint creation outside the virtual machine monitor because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. See Sur-reply 1– 2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not contest that Capalik’s fingerprint generation occurs outside the components that Petitioner identifies as the claimed virtual machine monitor. Reply 1–3; see Pet. 18–23 (mapping Capalik’s hypervisor kernel 516 to the claimed virtual machine monitor); id. at 30–31 (mapping Capalik’s processing module 508 and signature generation engine 530 to the claimed fingerprint creation); see also Prelim. Resp. 21–23 (explaining Petitioner’s mapping). Instead, Petitioner asserts that the at-issue claim language—“at the virtual machine monitor”—does not require “that each of the subsequently recited steps must be performed by or in the [virtual machine monitor],” but instead only requires “that the fingerprint is generated by the same decoy system that contains the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2. Petitioner argues that the intrinsic record supports its position because “[n]owhere in the ’697 Patent is there any teaching or suggestion that a [virtual machine monitor] creates a fingerprint/signature indicative of attack activity,” and instead, “[t]he ’697 Patent teaches that its signature generation engine is separate from the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:12–19). In addition, Petitioner asserts that requiring fingerprint creation at the virtual machine monitor “directly” slip op. at 8
- Adverse judgmentOther
“D. Statutory Disclaimer and Remaining Challenged Claims The Petition challenges claims 1–23. Pet. 10. However, because Patent Owner disclaimed claims 19 and 20 (Ex. 2010), the remaining challenged claims are 1–18 and 21–23. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (2020) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). Of the remaining challenged claims, only claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00095 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Orca disclaimed all challenged claims 1–18, so no trial could be instituted on them.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Based on our review of Exhibit 2002 and the USPTO’s public records, we conclude that a disclaimer of claims 1–18 of the ’855 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been recorded in the Office as of April 24, 2025. Ex. 2002. Because we cannot institute an IPR based on disclaimed claims and all of the challenged claims of the ’855 patent have been disclaimed, no trial will be instituted. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (Decision” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 11,637,855 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00093 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Orca disclaimed all challenged claims 1–20, leaving no claims on which to institute IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Based on our review of Exhibit 2002 and the USPTO’s public records, we conclude that a disclaimer of claims 1–20 of the ’257 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been recorded in the Office as of April 24, 2025. Ex. 2002. Because we cannot institute an IPR based on disclaimed claims and all of the challenged claims of the ’257 patent have been disclaimed, no trial will be instituted. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (Decision” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 11,582,257 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00092 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Orca disclaimed all challenged claims 1–19 before institution.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent” and, if the statutory disclaimer is filed properly, “[n]o [IPR] will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” A statutory disclaimer is “considered as part of the original patent” as of the date on which it is “recorded” in the USPTO. 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). “A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.” Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 993 F.3d 1374, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Disclaimed claims are treated as if they never existed.”)” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,516,231 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00070 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–21 on all five asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“MULTIPLE PETITIONS CHALLENGING THE ’872 PATENT In addition to challenging the claims of the ’872 patent with the instant Petition, Petitioner filed a petition in IPR2025-00068, which also challenged claims of the ’872 patent. IPR2025-00068, Paper 1 (“the ’68 Petition”). Petitioner ranked the instant Petition first and the ’68 Petition second. Paper 3, 5. Arguing that the circumstances here do not warrant two petitions, Patent Owner suggests that we discretionarily deny the instant Petition, stating that “[i]f the Board is inclined to institute either of [Petitioner’s] Petitions, [Patent Owner] respectfully submits the Board should institute IPR2025-00068.” Paper 8, 5. Because Petitioner ranks the instant Petition higher than the ’68 Petition, we decline to discretionarily deny this Petition due to Petitioner’s filing of the ’68 Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 8 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 13. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’872 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We first look to the claim language itself. It recites “transmitting to one or more computer systems,” not transmitting to “devices.” Ex. 1001, 19:53. Although the claim language “one or more computer systems” may encompass “protected network devices,” we do not see a reason that its plain meaning would be limited to network devices, much less protected network devices. Nor do we see a reason that the plain meaning of “one or more computer systems” is limited to protected network devices to the exclusion of a network that includes protected network devices and one or more other components. In support of its suggestion that the claim language “one or more computer systems” excludes a combination of protected network devices and one or more other components, Patent Owner cites the claim language “for preventing future attacks, to the one or more computer systems.” Prelim. Resp. 20–24; Prelim. Sur-Reply 1–2. But Patent Owner does not provide reasoning or evidence persuading us to read the claim language more narrowly than its plain meaning, which encompasses preventing future attacks to a computer system that includes both protected network devices and one or more other components.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,954,872 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00068 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Capalik and King.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argued that we should not institute both petitions. Paper 8, 1–5. Patent Owner argued that the challenged claims are not long and Petitioner’s concerns about the construction of “association” in limitation 1(b) are “contrived.” Id. at 1. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner could have addressed all of the challenged claims in one petition. Id. Noting that both the ’70 petition and the instant Petition challenge all claims of the ’872 patent, Patent Owner argued that the number of claims challenged does not necessitate multiple petitions. Id. at 2–3. Patent Owner also argued that Petitioner could have waited until closer to the statutory due the claim language “association” in the related district court proceeding. Id. at 4–5. Considering the facts holistically, we determine the totality of the circumstances here supports Petitioner’s position that two petitions are warranted. Petitioner has challenged a large number of claims directed to complex subject matter. And the task of challenging those claims is complicated by the potential for Patent Owner to argue for a narrow construction of “association” in limitation 1(b). Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner would not have needed to file multiple petitions if it had waited longer to file a petition is not persuasive. Paper 8, 4–5. Patent Owner does not explain why a petitioner should be encouraged to delay the filing of its petition. See id. And the parties appear to agree that Patent Owner has not weighed in on whether “association” should be interpreted narrowly or broadly. Prelim. Reply. 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 8. The present circumstances, considered as a whole, warrant two petitions challenging the claims of the ’872 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner explains the applicable level of skill in the art as follows: As of June 24, 2010, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience. A POSITA would also have had a working knowledge of software security analysis and dynamic malware analysis. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 13. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’872 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We first look to the claim language itself. It recites “transmitting to one or more computer systems,” not transmitting to “devices.” Ex. 1001, 19:53. Although the claim language “one or more computer systems” may encompass “protected network devices,” we do not see a reason that its plain meaning would be limited to network devices, much less protected network devices. Nor do we see a reason that the plain meaning of “one or more computer systems” is limited to protected network devices to the exclusion of a network that includes protected network devices and one or more other components. In support of its suggestion that the claim language “one or more computer systems” excludes a combination of protected network devices and one or more other components, Patent Owner cites the claim language “for preventing future attacks, to the one or more computer systems.” Prelim. Resp. 20–24; Prelim. Sur-Reply 1–2. But Patent Owner does not provide reasoning or evidence persuading us to read the claim language more narrowly than its plain meaning, which encompasses preventing future attacks to a computer system that includes both protected network devices and one or more other components.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,954,872 - PTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01374 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Sarbadhikari and Katagiri.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“court proceedings would proceed if a stay is requested because the court may determine whether or not to stay any individual case based on a variety of circumstances and facts beyond our control and to which the Board is not privy. Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp. - Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”). Accordingly, we find that factor 1 is neutral.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“whether to institute review in light of a previously filed inter partes review challenging the same patent. See Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 15–16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential). Principal among them is the first factor—“whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent.” Id. at 16. This factor has been extended to consider not only whether the petitioner is the same as a previous petitioner, but whether the petitioner has “a significant relationship” with the previous petitioner. See Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9– 10 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). Under Board persuasive authority, when two petitions challenge the same patent and “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors.” Decision Granting Director Review, Videndum Prod. v. Rotolight, IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 at 5–6 (PTAB Apr. 19, 2024) (emphasis added). Petitioner and Sony are not the same party and there is no evidence that any of the Petitioner entities has a legally significant relationship with Sony. Patent Owner does not dispute this. Prelim. Resp. 1–4. Given these facts and the Director’s Videndum guidance, we decline to discretionarily deny the Petition due to the Sony IPR. See Videndum, Paper 12 at 5–6.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Board may consider such factors as the types of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of workers in the field when determining the level of skill in the art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, a claim is construed “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. However, only claim terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that all terms are to be construed to have their plain and ordinary meanings and no terms require express” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,877,266
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.