- Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00420 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–26, finding no adequate justification for a second parallel petition challenging the same claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. . . . In addition, multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases. To date, a substantial majority of patents have been challenged with a single petition. Practice Guide 59 (emphasis added). The Practice Guide provides examples of “circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. None of these examples are pertinent here. For example, a second petition might be justified “when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. Petitioner does not argue that the number of claims in the parallel litigation is “large.” And while Petitioner does argue that the prior art relied upon on might be antedated, Patent Owner responds by stipulating “that it will not attempt to antedate or disqualify the voluminous prior art relied upon by Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioner’s remaining arguments are no more persuasive. Responding to Petitioner’s argument that different prior art is involved in the two petitions, Patent Owner points out, “[n]early all parallel petitions involve different proposed prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 6. We agree. Petitioner’s desire to double the available word count is an insufficient justification for a second petition. As our Practice Guide cautions, “[t]wo or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time . . . may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” Practice Guide 59. This is especially concerning here, where the instituted trial in IPR2024-00419 will involve nine references and eleven grounds. Adding an additional fifteen grounds and nine references from this Petition to the mix would create an “unnecessary burden.”” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“In sum, in the words of our Practice Guide, Petitioner fails to show “why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” Practice Guide 60. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the facts presented by Petitioner justify a second petition challenging the same claims of the ’015 patent as the petition in IPR2024-00419. We therefore exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,564,015 - Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00419 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–26 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Baig, Banga507, Banga690, and McFarland.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Furthermore, we deny Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny petition or due to the alleged lack of particularity in the Petition. We therefore institute inter partes review on all claims and all grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“Consistent with the Board’s practice for handling parallel petitions, Petitioner filed a Petition Ranking (Paper 3, “Notice”). See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019).2 In the Notice, Petitioner ranks this Petition first among the two petitions challenging the ’015 patent and the petition in IPR2024-00420 second. Notice 1. As is discussed in our separate decision in IPR2024-00420, entered concurrently, we have discretion to deny a parallel petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In view of Petitioner’s ranking and our assessment of the 1 Those ten additional petitions are the following: IPR2024-00413, IPR2024-00414, IPR2024-00415, IPR2024-00416, IPR2024-00417, IPR2024-00418, IPR2024-00421, IPR2024-00422, IPR2021-00423, and IPR2024-00424. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. issue in our institution decision in IPR2024-00420.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“violate[s] the ‘particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(A)(3).” Prelim. Resp. 8–13. Patent Owner cites the Petition’s eleven grounds based on nine “express” prior art references and 33 other “shadow”9 references and exhibits. Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner asserts that “it is unclear which references Petitioner intends to be (or not to be) part of each of the grounds in its Petition.” Id. at 12. Patent Owner complains about the length of the petition and accompanying declarations. Id. (“The Petition itself is seventynine pages long (13,850 words), and attaches fifty-six exhibits. One of those exhibits is a 349 page declaration from one of Petitioner’s experts.”) (citations omitted). Patent Owner cites the Board’s informative decision in Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 at 24 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019). We decline to exercise our discretion to deny this Petition for lack of particularity. Patent Owner’s reliance on Adaptics is misplaced. Adaptics is distinguishable from this case. In Adaptics, the petitioner’s use of “and/or” in its challenges yielded “hundreds of possible combinations.” Adaptics, Paper 20 at 19. In addition, the petitioner in Adaptics asserted a “catch-all” ground asserting obviousness as an alternative if its extensive anticipation 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial. 9 Patent Owner explains that these are exhibits “attached to the Petition and expressly cited and relied upon by Petitioner’s experts.” Prelim. Resp. 11. particularity, the Board cited this “catch-all” ground as “the worst offender.” Id. at 18. While we agree that the Petition in this case could have been more concise, we disagree that it is so “voluminous and excessive” as to warrant denial for lack of sufficient particularity. See Adaptics, Paper 20 at 18. slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“institution, Petitioner establishes sufficiently that the combination of Baig, Banga507, Banga690, and McFarland teaches or suggests each of the limitations recited in independent claim 1, and that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of those references. See Pet. 9–38. Petitioner asserts that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated and would have found it obvious to incorporate these teachings of Banga507, Banga690, and McFarland in Baig’s system to select targeted advertisements for groups of users demonstrating a pattern of accessing the Internet from a shared AP (e.g., at a coffee shop every Sunday) based on the group members’ collective preferences because doing so would have allowed Baig’s modified system to advantageously improve the relevance of the targeted advertisements provided to the group members.” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 39; Ex. 1015 ¶ 54; Lett Decl. ¶¶ 142–146). Petitioner presents an element-by element analysis supported by expert testimony. Id. at 15–30; Lett Decl. ¶¶ 151–237. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the merits of Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,564,015 - Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00459 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 10–31 are unpatentable under §103 over the asserted combinations involving Chandra or Keohane.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and . . . at least two years’ practical experience with computer networking and computer security.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner asserts that its positions would be the same under either proposal. Id. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as more consistent with the prior art and the ’825 patent, but our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“claims 1, 15, 21, and 27 recite methods in which a first network security appliance of a CSF receives network traffic to inspect, determines whether the traffic was transmitted from a second network security appliance that executed security operations on the traffic, determines network security operations for the first network security appliance to execute based on any security operations executed by the second network security appliance, and executes operations on the traffic. Ex. 1001, 10:58–11:17, 12:31–60, 13:20– 47, 14:13–37. As claimed, network traffic may travel in one direction from a second network security appliance to a first network security appliance. The ’825 patent describes unidirectional traffic as “one embodiment” of the CSF. A first network security appliance receives incoming network traffic and determines if the incoming network traffic is transmitted from a second network security appliance based on the source address of the traffic and determines operations that the second network security appliance executed. Ex. 1001, 2:48–56. In this embodiment, traffic travels in a single incoming direction between network security appliances. Tr. 30:22–31:18. The ’825 patent also describes the “cooperation” in a CSF as “[t]he network packet carrying the flag is transmitted to another member node at the next hop.” Ex. 1001, 6:28–34 (emphasis added); id. at 8:3–8. Traffic always flows from one hop to a next hop along the same path between root 220 at the edge of the network and each particular endpoint (leaf) shown in Figure 2 below. Traffic does not flow along different interconnected paths when it travels from root 220 to an endpoint leaf 240a–240d, 250 as Patent Owner asserts is required of a CSF. PO Resp. 13–15. Figure 2 is “an exemplary topology of a cooperative security fabric (CSF)” with Patent Owner’s annotation of network traffic paths. Ex. 1001, 2:29–31; PO Resp. 16. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to branch 230a to leaf 240a to the blue end node. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to leaf 250 to the red end node. Traffic from the green node travels along a single path to leaf 240d to branch 230b to root 220. Network security appliances only cooperate along a single red, green,” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“(3) Analysis We agree with Petitioner that “the claims only require two appliances and traffic to go from one appliance to the other.” Reply 11. Nothing in the claims or element 1[a] requires network traffic to originate from outside the private network or the CSF. Dr. Black testifies that the background of the ’825 patent describes a need for a CSF to coordinate operations performed on network traffic that is “transmitted to/from the network” to avoid or reduce redundant operations among members of the CSF” (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 44, 50), but Dr. Black describes the claimed network fabric and CSF entirely in the context of controlling network traffic transmitted within the enterprise network topology 200 as illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’825 patent (id. ¶ 52), which we discussed in Section II.B.1. supra and reproduce again below. In Figure 2, Patent Owner annotates paths taken by network traffic within network topology 200 comprising root 220, branches 230a, 230b, and leaves 240a–d, 250 within network 200. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 52. In addition, Chandra’s network 102 is “a collection of individual networks, interconnected with each other and functioning as a single large network.”7 Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. Network 102 can include LANs, WANs, and/or MANs. Id. As a result, network devices 104 located in different networks of network 102 transmit to one another via edge network links 218 within this internetwork of networks 102. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 21–30, Figs. 1, 2; Pet. 22–26. Transmitting and receiving CEs 208, 214 are security-based devices at the edges of different networks in network 102 to control incoming network traffic sent between transmitting and receiving network devices 206, 212 located in different networks. Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. A plurality of CEs can be associated with a single PE to receive incoming network traffic from a transmitting CE. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Thus, network traffic is transmitted from network devices 104 connected to a plurality of CEs that connect to other CEs via edge network link 218 and to other network devices 104 connected to those CEs “along multiple interconnected paths” (see id. ¶¶ 28–30) that satisfies Patent Owner’s definition of CSF (PO Resp. 13). The sending and receiving CEs “constitute multiple cooperating network security appliances” contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 38), as do CEs 208, 214.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Buruganahalli’s topology of devices 50, 52, 54 coordinates security operations that they perform on network data 58 sent from network device 54 to network device 52 to network device 50 from one hop to the next hop. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30–32, 34–36, 38–40, 46–48, Fig. 3. We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to update Chandra’s metadata tag for a multi-CE path to indicate actions taken, as Buruganahalli teaches, to reduce latency and resource waste. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28)). Dr. Franz testifies it would have been obvious to arrange Chandra’s different network security appliance CEs in series so that traffic passed through multiple CEs that performed different security functions in a CSF before reaching a receiving PE, as Chandra and Buruganahalli teach or suggest. Ex. 1019 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125). Patent Owner’s argument that the CEs are not in series does not address Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to place them in series, as Buruganahalli discloses, to perform different security operations on network traffic. Pet. 54; Ex. 1019 ¶ 60; Cf. Sur-reply 20–21. Petitioner contends that Chandra’s system also transmits data packets with updated labels to devices in an extended virtual private network (VPN) shown in Figure 8. Pet. 54. Petitioner asserts it was well known to connect a private network of a remote company site to another network such as an enterprise network using a VPN tunnel, and it would have been obvious to attach the VPN in Figure 8 to a private network as an extension of Figure 2’s private network. Pet. 54–56. Petitioner contends that, in such instances, a receiving CE would transmit data packets with the updated label to a receiving device in an extended network using the transmitting and receiving end configurations shown in Figures 2 and 8 of Chandra. Id. at 54. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to connect Chandra’s Figure 2 private network to Chandra’s Figure 8 VPN network to extend enterprise network communications so the next device in the extended VPN network would be “a next network appliance participating in the CSF” as claimed. Pet. 54–56; Reply 26–27 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 61). We also agree with Dr. Franz who testifies: Contrary to the PO’s assertion that “Petitioner…provides no rationale for why a POSITA would modify Chandra by combining Figures 2 and 8, or explain why a POSITA would reasonably expect it to succeed (POR, 45),” I provided ample reasons why a POSITA would have found it obvious that the VPN in Chandra’s Figure 8 could be attached as an extension to the private network in Chandra’s Figure 2 as illustrated below. In fact, I provided an example of a widely circulated official publication by the U.S. National Security Agency containing a reference architecture that recommended cascading multiple VPN solutions for added security. (Franz. Decl. ¶126-130.) Ex. 1019 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–130).” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,084,825 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,084,825 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 17–21 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Houston and Garcia render at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Thus, Patent Owner has shown that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Turning to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. As Petitioner argues, there is no evidence that the references in question were meaningfully addressed during the prosecution of the ’520 patent — there was no evaluation of the art or articulation regarding any arguments applying that art. Pet. 11. We note that the IPR petitions were submitted only after the prosecution came to a purported end with an Issue Notification — submission of the petitions briefly postponed issuance, but resulted in no further substantive actions other than a later issuance.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Accordingly, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s specific arguments directed to claim requirement 17[e], and its arguments discussed above generally relating to all of Petitioner’s grounds, for the reasons discussed above, for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that the record sufficiently supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirements 17[e] and 17[f]. d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 17 Based on our analysis set forth above, including our analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations of nonobviousness, we determine, on the current record and for purposes of this Decision, that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 45
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’520 patent (September 22, 2012): would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field and two or more years of experience in a related field such as networked computer systems using Internet protocols. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3–4 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Pet. 40–41; Ex. 2045. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument, that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared, is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the email and folder interface teachings of Garcia to modify Houston. Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 84–93, 102–104, 148, 151–152. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Houston and Garcia.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - PTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Irwin renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than the patents at issue in PGR2020-00084 and IPR2023- 01235. Challenging claims of different patents significantly distinguishes the facts here from those in General Plastic, and we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to extend General Plastic in this regard. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Weighing the Graham Factors “Once all relevant facts are found, the ultimate legal determination [of obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.” Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the record presently before us, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that Irwin would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–9 and 11–24 of the ’451 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,488,451 - PTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00327 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1 and 2 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Demircin renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the evidence currently of record, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’303 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition based on the parallel district court litigation. Prelim. Resp. 33– 39 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential)). Petitioner, however, presented a Sotera stipulation.8 Pet. 76 (citing Ex. 1029). Thus, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution here. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“3. Preliminary Analysis Regarding Claim 1 At this stage, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that the teachings of Demircin satisfy each limitation of claim 1. On the current record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that Demircin does not satisfy the parties’ agreed construction. As cited by Petitioner (see, e.g., Pet. 33, 43), Demircin teaches that when additional bandwidth becomes available, NAL units that were previously discarded or only partially transmitted may be transmitted in a delayed manner (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34, 104– 128, Fig. 13, 14). We are currently persuaded that Demircin teaches or reasonably suggests that such delayed NAL units could be received out of order and would be rearranged, as claimed.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,986,303 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00186 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Scoda did not disclose the claimed interception limitation and Hallak did not disclose execution of the removed script after removal.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the invention of the ’091 patent would have had master’s degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or would have had a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in internet communications. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, this proposal appears to be consistent with the ’091 patent and the prior art of record and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We find that the parties’ agreed upon construction is supported by the record before us and apply it in our patentability analysis below, requiring the embedded script to be removed before that script is executed. We determine that no other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“during trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Scoda discloses intercepting a web page sent from a We agree with Patent Owner that portions of Scoda cited in the Petition do not disclose a web page, let alone one sent from a server and addressed to a client browser. See PO Resp. 17; Tr. 73:10–23. Scoda discloses that “[t]he core module 21 is executed by the web content proxy server 12 to determine where to provide the response with the executed JavaScript functionality in the exemplary environment 10, such as to a web browser on one of the client devices 14(1)–14(n).” Ex. 1016 ¶ 55. But this functionality does not refer to a web page from a server. Instead, this discussion is about a HTTP request that comes from a client device and may include one or more hidden JavaScript identifiers. See id. ¶¶ 50–55. The discussion about providing a response to a web browser on a client device refers to a response to the client device’s HTTP request, in the form of an error message, that is sent from the proxy server to client device. Id. ¶ 58. As Patent Owner points out, this is one of the two scenarios presented in Scoda, the other one being that HTTP request is sent to the server. Id.; PO Resp. 36; see also Ex. 2009 ¶ 70. We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth that these communications between the client and proxy server or the proxy server and the content server do not disclose the “intercepting” limitation.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“deficient, Petitioner attempts to change the focus of its argument. Pet. Reply 2–3. Petitioner instead relies on Figure 8 and related discussion as “Scoda’s disclosure of proxy server 12 processing a web page that was sent from a web server.” Id. Scoda, and Petitioner’s argument based on this disclosure is, therefore, an untimely new argument presented in the Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,516,091 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,516,091 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00187 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 were not proven unpatentable: Athas does not show the same packets are received, modified, and forwarded; neither obviousness combination teaches execution in response to the client’s execution of the second script.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’457 patent would have had “a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications.” Pet. 14 (citing Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31). For our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s formulation. Institution Dec. 11. Patent Owner has not provided a description of the ordinarily skilled artisan. However, Dr. Almeroth testifies that although he “do[es] not necessarily agree with every aspect of Dr. Williams’s explanation,” he bases his opinions on Dr. Williams’s description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Almeroth Decl. ¶ 36. For this Final Written Decision, therefore, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner 6 Neither party has presented evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. and used previously in our Institution Decision. We find that this formulation is consistent with the ’457 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams. Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“as “the number of packets” intercepted in limitation 1a (see PO Resp. 6–7). Petitioner responds that resolving this argument is not necessary. Pet. Reply 1. We find that whether claim 1 requires the packets intercepted by the network appliance in limitation 1a to be the same packets involved in limitations 1b–1d, Petitioner has not persuasively shown that any same number of packets in Athas that are received at proxy platform 101 are then modified and forwarded as required by limitations 1b–1d, for the reasons discussed below. We agree with Patent Owner that the number of packets in limitations 1b-1d are the same, and, therefore, we find that Petitioner’s citations to Athas do not disclose the sequence of operations recited in claim limitations 1b–1d. Petitioner, therefore, does not demonstrate that Athas anticipates the claim. Specifically, we are not persuaded either by Petitioner’s assertions or Dr. Williams’s testimony that in Athas, the same “number of packets” that are received and modified by Athas’s proxy platform 101 are then forwarded to Athas’s proxy client 107, as required by limitations 1b–1d. PO Resp. 6– 7; 15–20; Almeroth Decl. ¶¶ 76–77. Petitioner does not persuasively address this issue the Petition or in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 2–11, asserting, in a footnote, only that “Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding same versus different packets,” and that “Dr. Williams’s testimony does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.”). Id. at 11 n.4 (citing Ex. 2011, 115:22–117:20, 118:5–12). The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12. There is, therefore, no persuasive evidence of record demonstrating that Athas discloses that the same “number of packets” received at proxy platform 101 are, in a modified form, forwarded to proxy client 107. For example, there is no support in the record for a finding that once the content of packets sent from service platform 109 to proxy platform 101 in Athas is extracted and manipulated to replace non-MWL scripts with MWL scripts and the DOM is generated, modified versions of the same received packets are forwarded to provide the web page to proxy client 107, as opposed to completely new packets. We find no sufficient support for this contention in Dr. Williams’s testimony:” slip op. at 23
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“1b-1d are the same, and, therefore, we find that Petitioner’s citations to Athas do not disclose the sequence of operations recited in claim limitations 1b–1d. Petitioner, therefore, does not demonstrate that Athas anticipates the claim. Specifically, we are not persuaded either by Petitioner’s assertions or Dr. Williams’s testimony that in Athas, the same “number of packets” that are received and modified by Athas’s proxy platform 101 are then forwarded to Athas’s proxy client 107, as required by limitations 1b–1d. PO Resp. 6– 7; 15–20; Almeroth Decl. ¶¶ 76–77. Petitioner does not persuasively address this issue the Petition or in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 2–11, asserting, in a footnote, only that “Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding same versus different packets,” and that “Dr. Williams’s testimony does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.”). Id. at 11 n.4 (citing Ex. 2011, 115:22–117:20, 118:5–12). The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12. There is, therefore, no persuasive evidence of record demonstrating that Athas discloses that the same “number of packets” received at proxy platform 101 are, in a modified form, forwarded to proxy client 107. For example, there is no support in the record for a finding that once the content of packets sent from service platform 109 to proxy platform 101 in Athas is extracted and manipulated to replace non-MWL scripts with MWL scripts and the DOM is generated, modified versions of the same received packets are forwarded to provide the web page to proxy client 107, as opposed to completely new packets. We find no sufficient support for this contention in Dr. Williams’s testimony:” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,924,457 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,924,457 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00245 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would show at least one claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the evidence currently of record, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’150 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition based on the parallel district court litigation. Prelim. Resp. 35 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential)). Petitioner, however, presented a Sotera stipulation.7 Pet. 88 (citing Ex. 1023). Thus, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution here. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with 7 See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential). Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Consistent with [Sotera], the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.”).8” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“Petitioner states that (i) “coded multi-view video signal,” recited in each of the challenged claims, “encompasses a coded video signal for two or more viewpoints, including at least one base viewpoint and at least one nonbase viewpoint” (Pet. 7), and (ii) “picture signal,” also recited in each of the challenged claims, “refers to a signal that represents at least one picture from a viewpoint” (Pet. 9). Petitioner also identifies four elements of claim 1 that Petitioner contends are means-plus-function claim elements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). Patent Owner states that for the purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed constructions . . . , including terms that it contends are subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).” Prelim. Resp. 10. At this stage, we apply the parties’ agreed-upon constructions for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“and DTS are provided in optional fields of packetized elementary stream packets. Ex. 1005, 7:19–25. Further, “[t]he video DTS . . . indicates the time when the picture needs to be decoded by the STD” (Ex. 1005, 7:47– 49), and on the current record, we understand Petitioner to cite the DTS parameters encoded in the transport stream for enhancement layer pictures as teaching the claimed coded information representing a desired delay time. Pet. 33. Among other examples, Petitioner (Pet. 34) and Dr. Reader (Ex. 1005 ¶ 201) cite Chen-736’s example of the formula DTSEi = DTSLi +1.5F, where F is a time interval based on the frame rate (Ex. 1005, 8:9–20), as indicating that DTSEi represents the start of decoding of the ith picture in the enhancement layer being delayed 1.5F relative to the start of decoding of the ith picture frame of the base layer. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 201); see Pet. 35–40 (citing additional examples of serial and parallel decoding with similar DTS calculations). At this stage, we find Petitioner’s position that the claim’s recitation that the coded information must “represent” the desired delay time to be a reasonable reading of the plain language of the claim such that a DTS value can represent the desired delay time even if it requires calculation. Pet. 35 n.8. Even if Chen-736’s use of F-based offsets as time intervals “is different than the concept of a desired delay between decoding” and Chen-736 recognizes the distinction between PTS and DTS (Prelim. Resp. 14–15), on the current record, these arguments do not rebut Petitioner’s mapping of Chen-736 to the claim language. Similarly, Patent Owner’s argument that Chen-736 teaches a DTS for all picture signals, including the base viewpoints and non-base viewpoints (Prelim. Resp. 16), does not rebut Petitioner’s mapping of Chen-736’s enhancement-layer DTS to the claim language. At this stage, on the current record we determine Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Chen-736 teaches or reasonably suggests this claim element.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,139,150 - Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00213 · APJ Daniel Kazhdan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review, see 35 U.S.C. § 314, and she delegated that authority to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The Board may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We determine that the Petition in this case does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims. We, therefore, deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use. A higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). The Preliminary Response does not provide a description of the person of ordinary skill in the art or dispute Petitioner’s description. Patent Owner’s expert “accept[ed] Dr. Bhattacharjee’s proposed qualifications of a [skilled artisan]” for purposes of his declaration. Ex. 2003 ¶ 20. For purposes of assessing institution, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as it is consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding. C. Claim construction slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The Preliminary Response argues that limitations [1A] and [1B-2] “require storing two or more shares generated from a dataset on two or more physical storage devices.” Prelim. Resp. 5. This, purportedly, is “a central feature” of the invention. Id.; see generally id. at 4–7. The relevant limitations recite: “[1A] a plurality of physical storage devices storing thereon a plurality of shares, the plurality of shares being associated with at least one session key used to secure a dataset” and a secure storage system configured to “[1B-2] generate the plurality of shares for storage on the plurality of physical storage devices by performing a securing operation on the dataset received from the client device and distributing the dataset in the shares.” See Ex. 1001 98:3–6, 98:12–15. As the Preliminary Response notes, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “‘a plurality of’ means ‘at least two of.’” SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd., 983 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing cases); Prelim. Resp. 5. As the Preliminary Response further notes, the Petition itself seems to interpret the claims as requiring storage on at least two physical storage devices. Prelim. Resp. 7. Specifically, the Petition argues that “Dickinson-Takeda . . . stores encryption results . . . on at least two of storage devices D1-D4.” Id. (quoting Pet. 68); see Ex. 2003 ¶ 19. Implicit in this is the need for at least two separate physical storage devices. Thus, we conclude that the claims require storing the shares among two or more physical storage devices.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“this decision we construe limitations [1A] and [1B-2] together to require storing two shares among at least two physical storage devices. Petitioner never addresses this requirement, and we find this to be a fatal flaw. According to Petitioner, Takeda teaches limitations [1A] and [1B-2] as follows: “Takeda’s technique involves dividing plaintext – which is any non-encrypted (i.e., unciphered) information – into blocks, ciphering different blocks using different ‘ciphering attributes’ (e.g., ciphering keys and/or ciphering algorithms), and outputting the ciphered blocks with the ciphering attributes.” Pet. 10; see generally id. at 10–16, 28–31, 39–40. Patent Owner responds that “Takeda’s blocks are stored together in a single storage device,” and this does not disclose or suggest storing the shares on at least two physical storage devices. Prelim. Resp. 8; see id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 51–53). We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Takeda discloses or suggests storing data on physically separable storage devices. The Petition points to Takeda’s teaching that the data is “divided into blocks.” Pet. 11. As Patent Owner notes, Takeda teaches that these blocks are all stored on a single, physical device. Prelim. Resp. 8. Specifically, Takeda teaches that “[t]he ciphertext is stored in the removable recording medium 39 or the storage device 37.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 92.5 We determine that Takeda does not teach or suggest storing this data in at least two separate media, at least two separate storage devices, or at least one of each. Correspondingly, Takeda’s Figures show data blocks next to each other—i.e., on one physical device. See id. at Figs. 1–4. The Petition does not suggest that Ophir teaches storing shares among different physical storage devices. As the Petition itself notes, Ophir seems to use a single “mediator [to] provide[] secure virtual storage to data clients.” Pet. 9 (quoting Ex. 1007 Abstract) (emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,338,140
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.