- Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 24, 2016 · CBM2016-00017 · APJ Richard H Marschall · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review because CoreLogic did not show that the patent claims a method or apparatus for a financial product or service.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with BSI. CoreLogic does not explain adequately how any of the claims of the ’946 patent recite a method or apparatus “for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” AIA § 18(d)(1). CoreLogic focuses on claim 1, but fails to identify any limitation in claim 1 or any other claim that relates to a financial activity in any way. Claim 1 claims a “method for retrieving and displaying geographic parcel boundary polygon maps,” which has applicability to retrieving and displaying map data, not financial products and services. CoreLogic suggests that the method of claim 1 “can be used” by various entities in a business context, but does not argue, let alone establish, that the claim terms on their face are financial in nature. See Pet. 11. CoreLogic asserts that the specification of the ’946 patent describes several methods of generating revenue using the claimed methods, and that numerous businesses may pay for access to map data generated using the claimed method. Pet. 10–16. CoreLogic’s reliance on these portions of the specification is unavailing. First, CoreLogic fails to address how these disclosures relate directly to, or meaningfully informs our analysis of, the language of the claims. For example, CoreLogic does not direct us to any claims or claim limitations that require users to pay for access to the map database or use of the claimed methods. Second, CoreLogic fails to address portions of the specification that indicate the claimed invention can be used “for free,” i.e., without any generation of revenue or financial aspect at all. See Ex. 1001, 2:59 (“These end users may access for free . . . .”), 13:54–56 (“Another public-private alliance option is to offer the free use of the NPDP server to such data sponsors in addition to or in lieu of their revenue share.”), 14:20–21 (“[C]ommodity service subscriber end users (customers) can have access to the NPDP at no charge.”), 15:51–55 (“It is also contemplated that other independent public and private data sponsors could be provided with links as part of the NPDP display which end users could access on a free or fee basis.”). Given that the specification contemplates use of the claimed inventions for free, it is not apparent that the “purpose of the claimed method is to provide data in exchange for money,” as CoreLogic suggests. Pet. 11. At most, CoreLogic has established that the claimed methods could be used to generate revenue in a number of ways, even though the language of the claims does not require any exchange of money or other financially related step. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the “financial prong” has not been met. Numerous Board decisions have taken a similar approach in situations where the specification refers to potential financial applications for the claimed inventions but the claim language does not expressly indicate a financial context.3 In Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc., CBM2015-00164 (Feb. 3, 2016) (Paper 8), for example, the claims were “devoid of any terms that reasonably could be argued as having any particular relation to a financial product or service,” but the specification” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,499,946 - Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 24, 2016 · CBM2016-00018 · APJ Richard H Marschall · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the petition did not establish that the ’352 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“method patent,” as defined by the AIA. CoreLogic bears the burden of persuasion that the ’352 patent is a covered business method patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a). For the reasons discussed below, we determine CoreLogic has made an insufficient showing that the ’352 patent is a “covered business method patent.” The AIA defines “covered business method patent” as “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The legislative history of the AIA “explains that the definition of covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’” Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,374, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“CBM Final Rules”) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)); see also Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To determine whether a patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. AIA § 18(d)(1) (“a patent that claims . . .” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) (same); CBM Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (comment 4) (“[T]he definition set forth in § 42.301(a) . . . is based on what the patent claims.”). A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for review. CBM Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (comment 8) (“A patent having one or more claims directed to a covered business method is a covered business method patent for purposes of the review, even if the patent includes additional claims.”).” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,065,352 - Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00219 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 12–15 and 17–21 were not shown unpatentable because Oosterom did not disclose searching the database using a jurisdictional identifier.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In the Institution Decision, we construed “jurisdictional identifier” to mean “a number or other name, code, or description that identifies a jurisdiction.” Dec. 6. We based our construction on the only appearance of “jurisdictional identifier” in the written description of the ’352 patent, which states: FIG. 3 illustrates a USA County Boundary Map (USACM). This is a public domain boundary file of each and every of the 3140 counties within the United States. Each of these polygons is geocoded with its county name and FIPS number, a numerical jurisdictional identifier, as illustrated in the figure. Ex. 1001, 8:48–53 (emphasis added).3 BSI does not challenge our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” in its Patent Owner Response, see PO Resp. 6, nor does CoreLogic challenge the construction in its Reply, see Reply 10. For this Final Written Decision, after considering the complete record, we maintain our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” as “a number or other name, code, or description that identifies a jurisdiction.”” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Having reviewed the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded CoreLogic has demonstrated that Oosterom discloses searching the parcel map database “using a jurisdictional identifier” as recited in claim 12. Among the attributes in Oosterom’s parcel and boundary tables identified by CoreLogic in its analysis, only the municipality codes (i.e., “municip” in the parcel table and “L_municip” and “R_municip” in the boundary table) qualify as “jurisdictional identifiers.” See Ex. 1010, 513–14 (Tables 1, 2). The “object_id” of an object, e.g., a parcel or a boundary, is a nationwide unique identifier, but there is no indication in Oosterom that the object_id of a parcel or boundary identifies a jurisdiction. See id. at 512; see also id. at 513–14 (showing object_id attribute in parcel and boundary tables). As for the “ogroup” attribute in the parcel and boundary tables, Oosterom states only that it “indicates to which group the record belongs.” Id. at 519. Nothing in Oosterom describes the ogroup as identifying a jurisdiction. Although the municipality code attributes in the parcel and boundary tables identify jurisdiction, CoreLogic does not cite any portion of Oosterom that illustrates the use of municipality codes in searching the database for selected parcels as required by claim 12. See Pet. 45. Dr. Goodchild opines that the “municipality code . . . would allow us to search [the] parcel table by that jurisdiction and to identify all the parcels in that jurisdiction.” Ex. 2010, 19:22–24. He further testifies that in his analysis, he “was concerned with the specific kind of query identified in the claim, which is much narrower than Oosterom’s discussion [and] much more specific than the broad range of queries discussed by Oosterom.” Id. at 21:14–25. Ultimately, he states that the “question [he] analyzed is whether [Oosterom’s] database is capable of supporting the type of query identified in the claim.” Id. at 22:14–16 (emphasis added). Dr. Goodchild’s testimony that municipality codes could be used in searching Oosterom’s database, however, is insufficient to establish for anticipation purposes that Oosterom discloses the step of searching a multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database for a selected parcel boundary polygon “using a jurisdictional identifier.”” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeOther
“C. CoreLogic’s Motion to Exclude Evidence CoreLogic moves to exclude the redirect testimony of BSI’s expert, Mr. William Huxhold, on the ground that it was provided in response to leading questions. Mot. Excl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034, 150:6–153:8). The redirect testimony relates to a portion of Mr. Huxhold’s cross-examination testimony. Id. at 1–2 (citing Ex. 1034, 72:5–22). Because we do not rely on Mr. Huxhold’s testimony, CoreLogic’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 8,065,352 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,065,352 - Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00226 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over the Harder-based grounds; the Kearney and ARC/INFO ground was not proven for claims 1–6 and 20–21.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedUnpatentable
“In summary, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions and find that Harder and Longley, once combined as proposed by Petitioner, teach or suggest the limitations of independent claim 1.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art is “at least a bachelors degree in geographic information science, survey engineering, geomatics, or similar education, and two years of experience in a relevant field (e.g., land or geographic information science), or six years of experience in the relevant field.” Ex. 1006 (Declaration of Michael Goodchild), ¶ 11. Patent Owner has proposed that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess a “a Bachelor’s degree or higher in, GIS engineering with at least 5 years of academic or industry experience in GIS database design..” Ex. 2005 (Declaration of William Huxhold), ¶ 14. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“The disclosure of Longley and the knowledge of one skilled in the art would have motivated such a person to modify Harder’s system given that Harder discloses parcel-based searching and display functionalities for a jurisdiction (e.g., Ex. 1003, 21-25) and for multiple states (id., 49-51), and discloses that databases in GIS environments could span multiple jurisdictions (id.,7, 49- 51), and that Longley discloses configuring such databases to include data relating to different states and also discloses parcel based systems. Moreover, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to look to Longley to supplement the features of the systems and processes of Harder given they both describe[] features of ESRI systems. Ex. 1015, 170, 172; Ex. 1003. Thus, modifying Harder’s database in such a way would have been a common sense and predictable modification that was within the realm of knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 35- 39. Pet. 18–19. The Petition continues:” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 7,499,946 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,499,946 - Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00222 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable: claims 9, 10, and 12–22 as obvious over Harder and Du; claims 1–8, 11, and 23 as obvious over Harder, Du, and MacDonald.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” (internal quotations omitted)); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In this case, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We remain unpersuaded by BSI’s arguments. As we explained in the Institution Decision, although the ’352 patent describes assembling a national parcel-level map database from data provided by various sponsoring agencies, the claims themselves do not require assembling the multi-jurisdictional database using any specific method or obtaining the information in the database from any particular sources. Dec. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:41–48, 4:8–11). Moreover, BSI’s reliance on the prosecution history of the ’957 patent does not support its position, as the claims at issue there did not recite a “multi-jurisdictional database.” See Ex. 2006, 132–37, 141, 193–200). For these reasons, we maintain our construction of “multi- jurisdictional database” as “a collection of data relating to two or more jurisdictions.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“success”9 in combining Harder and Du because Du would not be used to maintain data for jurisdictions with a large number of parcels, and the visibility of parcels would be diminished in a map with so many parcels. PO Resp. 38. We do not find this argument to be persuasive because, as CoreLogic notes, Du discloses that cells can correspond to different types of jurisdictions and that any geographic areas can be searched and displayed. See Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1018, Fig. 3, 3:21–32, 4:38–40, 6:31–38, 9:5–6, 9:16–44). BSI also argues that a county identified as a cell in Du would include a huge amount of parcel data, and data for the entire cell would be transmitted to a client computer in the system described in Du, thereby defeating a purpose of Du’s system—the speedy display of maps. PO Resp. 38–39. CoreLogic, however, relies on Du for teaching an index of 9 We understand BSI’s use of the phrase “reasonable likelihood of success” to be an argument that there would be no “reasonable expectation of success” in the combination of references, rather than a reference to the reasonable likelihood standard for instituting an inter partes review. jurisdictional identifiers used to search a portion of a multi-jurisdictional database, not the transmission of parcel data, and has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Du’s teaching of an index with Harder’s system for retrieving and transmitting parcel boundary polygon map data. See Reply 15. We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence on this issue, and we agree with and adopt CoreLogic’s reasoning for modifying Harder’s single-county example in view of Du to retrieve a jurisdictional identifier from an index and use it to search a portion of a multi-jurisdictional database for a selected parcel. In sum, we find that the combination of Harder and Du teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 9 and that CoreLogic has provided articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings for combining the references in the manner asserted. Therefore, we conclude CoreLogic has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 would have been obvious over Harder and Du.” slip op. at 22
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“G. CoreLogic’s Motion to Exclude Evidence CoreLogic moves to exclude the redirect testimony of BSI’s expert, Mr. William Huxhold, on the ground that it was provided in response to leading questions. Mot. Excl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034, 150:6–153:8). The redirect testimony relates to a portion of Mr. Huxhold’s cross-examination testimony. Id. at 1–2 (citing Ex. 1034, 72:5–22). Because we do not rely on the cited redirect testimony or the cited cross-examination testimony, CoreLogic’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 8,065,352 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,065,352 - Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00228 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 19 are unpatentable: claims 1–10, 12, 14, 15, and 19 as obvious over Harder and Longley, and claim 11 over Harder, Longley, and Roy.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision to Institute, we construed “numerical jurisdictional identifier” to mean “a number that identifies a jurisdiction.” Dec. to Inst. 7– 8. We based our construction on the only appearance of “jurisdictional identifier” in the written description of the ’957 patent: FIG. 3 illustrates a USA County Boundary Map (USACM). This is a public domain boundary file of each and every of the 3140 counties within the United States. Each of these polygons is 8 geocoded with its county name and FIPS number, a numerical jurisdictional identifier, as illustrated in the figure. Ex. 1001, 8:48–53 (emphasis added).1 Patent Owner does not challenge our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” in its Patent Owner Response, see PO Resp. 7, nor does Petitioner challenge the construction in its Reply, see Reply 7. For this Final Written Decision, after considering the complete record, we maintain our construction of “numerical jurisdictional identifier” as “a number that identifies a jurisdiction.”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also proposes a construction for “national parcel map database comprising multiple jurisdictional databases which have been normalized to a common data protocol.” PO Resp. 7–15. Patent Owner’s proposal is 60 words long, and reads, “a database covering more than one state including multiple jurisdictional databases, wherein a jurisdictional database is a collection of data representing the boundaries of parcels from the jurisdiction, each of the jurisdictional databases having been received from a jurisdiction, and modified, transformed, amended or converted by a common set of one or more processes applied to all data and updates.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner had in its Preliminary Response proposed a different construction (“the database of individual land parcels having been 1 According to the ’957 patent, the Federal Information Processing Standards (“FIPS”) number “is used nationally to numerically identify specific county jurisdictions.” Ex. 1001, 7:27–30. 9 transformed by a set of one or more automated and/or semiautomated processes applied to data and data updates supplied by sponsoring jurisdictions using a set of rules or procedures”) for nearly the identical phrase (“multiple jurisdictional databases which have been normalized to a common data protocol”). Prelim. Resp. 15–17. We did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction in our Decision to Institute, and we do not adopt its revised (and lengthier) construction in this Final Written Decision, for the reasons argued by Petitioner in its Reply (Reply 2–5) and also because the Patent Owner’s prolix proposed construction does not add clarity to the term. We decline to provide an express construction for this term or for any other terms in the claims other than discussed above.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art is “at least a bachelors degree in geographic information science, survey engineering, geomatics, or similar education, and two years of experience in a relevant field (e.g., land or geographic information science), or six years of experience in the relevant field.” Ex. 1006 (Declaration of Michael Goodchild), ¶ 11. Patent Owner has proposed that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess a “a Bachelor’s degree or higher in, GIS engineering with at least 5 years of academic or industry experience in GIS database design.” Ex. 2004 (Declaration of William Huxhold), ¶ 13. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“universal spatial protocol using SHP files (shapefiles) (Ex. 1001, 7:31–41), and Harder’s description of how its system’s datasets are “stored in the industry-standard shapefile (.shp) format” and how the system “converts the data into shapefiles.” Pet. Reply 9–11; Ex. 1003, 24, 106. Petitioner also notes that Patent Owner’s declarant acknowledged that assembling databases according to a standard protocol was in the prior art. Pet. Reply 11; Ex. 1034, 29:15–32:17, 32:18–40:22. We agree with Petitioner and find that Harder teaches or suggests databases that have been normalized to a common data protocol. Second, Patent Owner argues about the lack of disclosure of multiple jurisdictional databases. PO Resp. 28–29. Petitioner contends multiple jurisdictional databases are taught by both Harder and Longley, which explicitly discloses a “STATES table” that is a multi-state database. Pet. Reply 13; Ex. 1015, 229, Fig. 11.2. We agree with Petitioner and find that Harder and Longley teach or suggest multiple jurisdictional databases.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,092,957 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,092,957 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 17, 2016 · IPR2016-00119 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–26 because Martinez-Guerra did not teach or suggest the claimed command action value in each parse-tree element.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“value” has an ordinary meaning in the context of the invention. When a claim term “does not have an ordinary meaning, and its meaning is not clear from a plain reading of the claim, we turn to the remaining intrinsic evidence, including the written description, to aid in our construction of that term.” Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582–83, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Hockerson– Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 955, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1490 (Fed. Cir. 2000).) If the applicants for a patent desire to be their own lexicographer, the purported definition must be set forth in either the specification or prosecution history. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Such a definition must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Prelim. Resp. 27–28. We find that the error reporting aspect of Martinez- Guerra is not a value used to identify a prescribed command, as required by our claim construction. The error does not indicate a prescribed command. Additionally, the error is not contained in each element of the parse tree; rather, it is only at the particular branch of the tree that causes an error.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“To the extent that Petitioner relies on a sequence in which an error occurs and then a correct translation is made, as shown on page 19 of the 15 Petition, that sequence is not described in the Specification and appears only in the Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony, without citation to the record, at paragraphs 38 and 39. We give such testimony little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). It is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to the testimony offered by a declarant. See, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). Thus, Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that in the case in which an error occurs there is a command action value at each element of the parse tree.” slip op. at 15
Claim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,047,526 - Hospitality Core Services, LLC v. Nomadix, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 3, 2016 · IPR2016-00073 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–17 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving anticipation by Slemmer or obviousness over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,246 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’246 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Patent Owner, Nomadix Inc., filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Section 314(a) provides that 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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of claims 1–17.” slip op. at 2
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the record before us, neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner has provided sufficient evidence or argument that the CRU’s interpretation of “redirection server” should be discarded. Petitioner’s support for rejecting the CRU’s construction is to point to Patent Owner’s comments after the CRU’s reexamination decision in the ’894 patent. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1004, 1–2; Ex. 1001, 24:60–66, 36:52–55). Patent Owner’s comments do not definitively refute the reasoning and construction of “redirection server” and “redirection unit” set out by the CRU and applied in the ’894 reexamination. See Ex. 1004, 1–2; Ex. 1004, 67. We are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the Specification of the ’246 patent indicates that the “redirection server” or “redirection unit” need not be a separate device. Prelim. Resp. 7. The Specification states that the redirection server may be located within the gateway device, which does not directly refute the CRU’s construction. Based on the record before us, we determine that the CRU’s interpretation of “redirection server” as claimed is not in error. Accordingly, we determine that “a redirection server [or portal page redirection unit] is a piece of hardware that can be configured as a stand-alone unit or an add-in module for a gateway device” and “is not software.” Ex. 1004, 67. B. Anticipation Based on Slemmer (Ex. 1005) and Obviousness Based on” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Regardless of the confidential markings, Mr. Olsen does not indicate why, in his service as the lead software programmer (Ex. 1011 ¶ 1) with the “role of software development,” which included “working on all aspects of IPORT system including the development, implementation, and documentation” relating to the IPORT system (id. ¶ 3), he was privy to when, or whether, particular documents were placed on the company’s website. Further, although Mr. Olsen submits that documents including IPORT were “distributed to a number of major hotel chains,” and “many other existing and prospective customers” (id. ¶ 50) — with no clear indication of when — the Declaration does not allege or explain that distribution to those entities means that the document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” Lister, 583 F.3d at 1311. “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Further, although Mr. Olsen testifies (Ex. 1020 ¶ 49) that information “describing IPORT” was “published on [ATCOM’s] website,” the testimony does not indicate how one of ordinary skill in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate the IPORT documents in question. See SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1186. We conclude that, on this record, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of at least a preliminary showing that IPORT are printed publications as contemplated by 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b).” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“1005) (Pet. 36–39) and rendered obvious by Slemmer and Vu (Ex. 1006) (Pet. 39–40). Petitioner relies on the “software control program” in Slemmer (Ex. 1005, 4:40–42) to disclose the “portal page redirection unit” in claim 1 and the “redirection server” in claims 6 and 9 of the ’246 patent. Petitioner concedes, however, that if “redirection server” and “portal page redirection unit” are construed as in the ’894 patent reexamination proceedings “to exclude a software proxy running on the gateway,” then the software proxy of Slemmer does not disclose the recited “redirection server” or “portal page redirection unit.” Pet. 36, 40. Based on our construction of “redirection server” and “portal page redirection unit” discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that the software program of Slemmer does not disclose the “portal page redirection unit” in claim 1 and the “redirection server” in claims 6 and 9 of the ’246 patent. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Slemmer and Vu, or unpatentable as anticipated by Slemmer under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,156,246 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 27, 2016 · IPR2014-00970 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Rehearing
Denied SanDisk’s rehearing request; the Board maintained its findings that claims 2, 5, and 6 were not shown obvious over Huang and claims 17–19 and 35 were not shown anticipated by Averbuj.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“20–21 (“Averbuj discloses that in BIST mode, the multiplexer 46 shown in Fig. 6 selectively inputs signals BIST_ADDR/CTRL (i.e., address and control signals from the control module) to the address and control port of the corresponding memory device 12.” (emphasis added)). In other words, the Petition is devoid of any discussion of BIST_EN in connection with the limitations of claims 17–19 and 35. See Pet. 19–21. Likewise, the Reply fails to contain any discussion of how the claim limitations are met by Averbuj’s use of the BIST_EN signal. See Reply 17. 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) requires each petition to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” Our discussion in the Final Decision of the patentability challenge as to claims 17–19 and 35 based on anticipation by Averbuj addresses Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition and Reply, which are limited to a contention that Averbuj’s multiplexer 46 is required to meet the “configured to selectively input” and “selectively inputs” limitations recited in claims 17–19 and 35. See Final Dec. 44–46 (citing Pet. 19–21; Reply 17). In arguing that we should have considered Dr. Alpert’s testimony that Averbuj’s sequencer, by generating a BIST_EN signal, is “configured to selectively input”/“selectively inputs” address and control signals to the memory modules, Petitioner attempts to improperly incorporate arguments into its Petition and Reply by reference to Dr. Alpert’s declaration testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). In any event, we find the declaration testimony relied on by Petitioner in support of this Request (see Req. Reh’g 13) supports our determination that Petitioner failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj anticipates claims 17–19 and 35. Dr. Alpert testified that if the “configuration [to selectively input to the address and control ports] is determined to require the structure that performs the selection itself, then the disclosed control module also includes multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 78 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 81 (identifying multiplexer 46 as the “DRAM controller which performs the selective inputting” as recited in claim 18). Petitioner did not explain (see Pet. 19–21; Reply 17) how Averbuj describes multiplexer 46 as being part of sequencer 8 (the alleged control module). See Final Dec. 45–46 (explaining that Petitioner has not addressed Patent Owner’s argument that the device that selectively inputs address and control signals to memory modules 12 is multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41 (the alleged data handler), not sequencer 8 (the alleged control module)). In sum, for the above reasons, we are not persuaded of error in our determination that Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of claims 17–19 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Averbuj.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Huang and Tsern, Petitioner relied on the declaration testimony of its expert, Dr. Donald Alpert (Ex. 1007). See, e.g., id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 222 in support of its challenge as to claim 2). In concluding Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that claims 2, 5, and 6 would have been obvious over Huang in view of Tsern, we said the following: Dr. Alpert’s opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Huang and Tsern . . . is either unsupported or relies on disclosure in the ’434 patent Detailed Description. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 193, 199, and 206. . . . [T]here is no evidence on this record that the cited portions of the ’434 patent are a description of prior art. Moreover, Dr. Alpert’s statements lack sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as to why an ordinary artisan at the time of the invention would have had a reason to combine the prior art elements in the manner required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” Our discussion in the Final Decision of the patentability challenge as to claims 17–19 and 35 based on anticipation by Averbuj addresses Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition and Reply, which are limited to a contention that Averbuj’s multiplexer 46 is required to meet the “configured to selectively input” and “selectively inputs” limitations recited in claims 17–19 and 35. See Final Dec. 44–46 (citing Pet. 19–21; Reply 17). In arguing that we should have considered Dr. Alpert’s testimony that Averbuj’s sequencer, by generating a BIST_EN signal, is “configured to selectively input”/“selectively inputs” address and control signals to the memory modules, Petitioner attempts to improperly incorporate arguments into its Petition and Reply by reference to Dr. Alpert’s declaration testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). In any event, we find the declaration testimony relied on by Petitioner in support of this Request (see Req. Reh’g 13) supports our determination that Petitioner failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj anticipates claims 17–19 and 35. Dr. Alpert testified that if the “configuration [to selectively input to the address and control ports] is determined to require the structure that performs the selection itself, then the disclosed control module also includes multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 78 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 81 (identifying multiplexer 46 as the “DRAM controller which performs the selective inputting” as recited in claim 18). Petitioner did not explain (see Pet. 19–21; Reply 17) how Averbuj describes multiplexer 46 as being part of sequencer 8 (the alleged control module). See Final Dec. 45–46 (explaining that Petitioner has not addressed Patent Owner’s argument that the device that selectively inputs address and control signals to memory modules 12 is multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41 (the alleged data handler), not sequencer 8 (the alleged control module)). In sum, for the above reasons, we are not persuaded of error in our determination that Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of claims 17–19 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Averbuj.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,001,434 - Hospitality Core Services LLC v. Nomadix, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 27, 2016 · IPR2016-00052 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the IPORT grounds lacked a threshold showing of printed-publication status and it declined the Applegate grounds under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“and IPORT V2x are prior art “printed publications” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b). We look to the underlying facts to make a legal determination as to whether a document is a printed publication. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The determination of whether a document is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding its disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-by-case basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“and IPORT V2x are prior art “printed publications” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b). We look to the underlying facts to make a legal determination as to whether a document is a printed publication. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The determination of whether a document is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding its disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-by-case basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under . . . chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (titled “MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS”). Further, in construing our authority to institute inter partes review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, we are mindful of the guidance provided in § 42.1(b): “[37 C.F.R. § 42] shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” Petitioner’s remaining asserted grounds of unpatentability, five of seven asserted grounds, rely on Applegate, alone or in combination with other references. See Pet. 4‒5, 29‒34, 36. Yet, Applegate received full consideration in view of the subject matter claimed in the ʼ894 patent in the denial of inter partes reexamination. The Central Reexamination Unit determined that a redirection server, as claimed, comprises hardware, and the only element disclosed by Applegate that performs redirection is software. See supra § II.D. We find nothing in this record that might demonstrate error in the CRU’s determinations. For example, as alleged by Patent Owner in its “Comments” to the CRU Director’s denial of the inter partes reexamination, the ʼ894 patent discloses that “[t]he redirection is accomplished by a Home Page Redirect (HPR) performed by the gateway device, a AAA server, or by a portal page redirect unit located internal to or external to the gateway device.” Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 5‒8. The claims, however, do not set forth a redirection “device” or “unit” but a redirection “server.” The indicated Specification portion of the ʼ894 patent describes an AAA “server” that may perform the redirection, which may be distinguished from a pure software embodiment performing the function, even if the server is located within the gateway device.5 See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 22‒24” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references, however, is lacking in a factual basis for such combination. According to Petitioner, “IPORT and Birrell describe the redirection server configured as a separate hardware circuit, and Coss and Colby describe systems using packet address modification for packet redirection, which could likewise be combined with Applegate and [Slemmer] to arrive at the system claimed in the [ʼ]894 patent.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex 1020 ¶ 39 (similar allegations)). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). As our reviewing court instructs: Although the obviousness analysis should “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” the Supreme Court emphasized that this evidentiary flexibility does not relax the requirement that, “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.” Id. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)] (citing [In re] Kahn, 441 F.3d [977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)] (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Petitioner’s challenge of the claims over Applegate, Slemmer, and Birrell (Pet. 4 (Ground 3), 32‒33, 58‒59) provides mere conclusory statements in support of the legal conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner offers no convincing rationale, in light of the teachings of the prior art, with respect to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to combine the elements of the asserted art in a way “to arrive at the system claimed in the [ʼ]894 patent.” Pet. 59.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,636,894
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.