- PTAB · Jan 12, 2023 · IPR2022-01090 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–42 and 46–66 on all asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that claims 1–42 and 46–66 would have been obvious over the asserted prior art. See id. at 33–96. Patent Owner raises several objections to Petitioner’s obviousness showing. We address those issues below.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“§ 325(d) because one of the asserted references, Nishitani, “was substantively considered by the Examiner during Supplemental Examination of the ʼ436 Patent.” PO Prelim. Resp. 7–8. In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). For the reasons given below, we are not persuaded to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition based on § 325(d).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“The main concern motivating the General Plastic framework is “the potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks on patents” by a petitioner who files “[m]ultiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims . . . . using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.” General Plastic, Paper 19 at 17. Here, the potential for abuse is minimal because this is the first time this petitioner has challenged the ’436 patent, and Patent Owner does not allege any connection or relationship between this Petitioner and the previous petitioners that might warrant exercising our discretion to deny institution. PO Prelim Resp. 14–15; Sur-reply 8–9; compare Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods. Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9–10 (Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (exercising discretion to deny institution based on a different petitioner’s earlier-filed petition where the different petitioners were co- defendants in a related district-court litigation, and where both petitioners were accused of infringing the challenged patent based on the same product incorporating technology licensed from petitioner Valve). In addition, it is reasonable that Petitioner filed its own Petition after the three previous petitions filed by unrelated parties given that “the present litigation dispute between Petitioner and Patent Owner did not begin until March 2021—well after the last of the three prior IPR petitions was filed.” Pet. Reply 10. Thus, this subsequent challenge against the ’436 patent appears to be a result of Patent Owner’s litigation activity, rather than Petitioner’s abuse of the review process. We find the circumstances in this case do not warrant denying the Petition under § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionOther
“required in claims 1 and 18 “mean[s] that the two images are ‘captured independently of each other and without metadata (or other information) relating angles of cameras that captured the images.’” Pet. 5 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 20). In addition to its expert, Petitioner cites as support the patent’s prosecution history, in which Patent Owner asserted this definition. Id. at 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003, 167–169; Ex.1004 ¶ 21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction in its Preliminary Response. Based on the present record, we agree with Petitioner that images that are not a stereoscopic pair means that the two images are captured independently of each other and without metadata (or other information) relating angles of cameras that captured the images.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,078,436 - Bank Of America, N.A. v. Nant Holdings IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01081 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a rational reason to combine the references and a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“imaging device (camera) to obtain two images for purposes of segmentation via Bolle’s Figure 3a and 3b embodiments, and that Ogasawara teaches using a mobile device to obtain a single image for purposes of pattern recognition. Bolle itself explicitly states that the object, background, and image input device “should be at the same position” when acquiring the first/dark image and second/light image, and that the two images must be spatially registered (explained above). Ex. 1006, 10:31–44; see id. at 9:48–51 (“By placing the object 131 on the surface 405, the distance 407 between camera 120 and object 131 remains fixed thus providing the means for repeatable imaging.”). We credit Dr. Bajaj’s (Patent Owner’s expert) testimony that Bolle requires a stationary camera and spatially registered images for purposes of segmentation via Bolle’s Figure 3a and 3b embodiments, which we find to be well-aligned with Bolle’s disclosure and the complete record before us. See, e.g., Ex. 2006 ¶ 38. We find Dr. Bajaj’s testimony on this issue much more credible than Dr. Rodriguez’s (Petitioner’s expert) testimony to the contrary, which we find to be misaligned at best with Bolle’s explicit disclosures discussed above. See, e.g., Ex. 1050 ¶ 66 (Dr. Rodriguez testifying that Bolle’s Figure 4 shows a stationary camera, but Bolle allegedly is not limited to using a stationary camera; and that Bolle’s segmentation techniques do not require “exact alignment,” merely “approximate[]” alignment of images, without explaining how or why the skilled artisan would have interpreted Bolle in that way); Ex. 2007, 97:22– 99:6 (testifying on re-direct to the same); see also Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, S.A.R.L., 859 F.3d 1014, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the Board is “not required to credit [a party’s] expert evidence simply because [the party] offered it”); TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This court’s opinions have repeatedly recognized that conclusory expert testimony is inadequate to support an obviousness determination on substantial evidence review.”); MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 41
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Paragraph 37 of Exhibit 2006 that ‘a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a wireless videophone available in the late-1990s would have significantly less processing power than any of the hardware discussed in Bolle.’ Ex. 2006, ¶ 37. Dr. Bajaj, however, provides no facts or data to support this bald assertion.” Mot. Excl. 5. We disagree that Dr. Bajaj has to show more. As an expert in the field, Dr. Bajaj can testify as to his opinion regarding the state of the art at a certain time period, without need of specific underlying material. The subject is not one for which Dr. Bajaj needs to run an experiment to observe the results. In the absence of supporting material, the testimony may be challenged as lacking sufficient credibility, but the testimony is not inadmissible. In any event, as discussed above, our decision assumes that Ogasawara’s videophone has processing circuitry just as powerful as Bolle’s computer. The testimony did not result in any detriment to Petitioner.” slip op. at 60
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Figure 3a embodiment, Petitioner offers no specific reason, let alone a rational one stated with particularity, for why the skilled artisan would have turned specifically to Bolle’s “image segmentation” teaching of comparing two spatially registered images of a scene, one with and the other without an object present, as depicted in Figure 3a. Instead, Petitioner takes Bolle’s teachings concerning Figure 3a out of context, and argues only generally that the skilled artisan allegedly would have been motivated to use Bolle’s “image segmentation” (generically) with Ogasawara to achieve the invention of claim 1. See, e.g., Pet. 21 (Petitioner arguing generally that combining Ogasawara and Bolle would have “achieve[d] a system that could more” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 7,881,529 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,881,529 - Bank Of America, N.A. v. Nant Holdings IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01332 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, and 18 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish motivation to combine Ogasawara and Bolle or a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art] . . . would have had a range of knowledge roughly equivalent to the knowledge and/or training of a person holding the degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and one to two years of experience working with image processing, image recognition, or a related field.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). In the Decision to Institute, we determined that Petitioner’s articulation is consistent with the prior art and patent specification and is supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level “does not contend that an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art should be applied.” PO Resp. 18. Thus, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. C.” slip op. at 11
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The district court construed the recognize limitation to mean “recognizing the at least one object in the scene as a target object based at least in part on the at least one characteristic of the video stream by comparing the at least one characteristic with characteristics of objects stored in a database to find a match.” Id. at 19. In adopting this construction, the district court remarked: “The Court agrees with Defendants that the ‘recognizing’ step requires querying a database.” Id. The district court rejected parts of Petitioner’s proposed construction there, finding no reason to change “recognizing” to “identifying,” and also finding no reason to change “based at least in part on the at least one characteristic” to “matching the at least one characteristic.” Ex. 2006, 17–19. With regard to the requirement of “finding a match,” the district court explained: “The intrinsic evidence consistently emphasizes that the system compares parameters in order to match a target object with an object in a database in order to ‘recognize’ the target.” Id. at 18; see also id. at 18–19. The district court also did not adopt Patent Owner’s plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner is correct that the antecedent basis in claim 1 for “the scene” is the earlier recited “a scene.” Patent Owner is incorrect, however, in characterizing “the” as a singular modifier. The definite article “the” can be used to modify something plural, e.g., “the scenes.” Although in claim 1, “the” is used to modify a “scene,” that does not help the Patent Owner, because nothing in the claim excludes the involvement of additional scenes while one “scene” is analyzed. Patent Owner points to nothing in claim 1 which restricts the analyzing to “only” one scene or “no more” than one scene, and we see none. Further, claim 1 uses the non-limiting phrase “comprising,” which creates a presumption that the claim is not limited to only those elements expressly recited in the claim. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We recognize that the only embodiment described in the specification of the ’004 patent analyzes only a single scene, but we are not required to construe the claim as limited to just that embodiment. Innova/Pre Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1121–22 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Such a construction is neither encouraged nor presumed. Id. Additionally, Patent Owner points to no expressions of disavowal either in the prosecution history or in the specification of the ’004 patent with regard to “a scene” in which the patent applicant disavows, with clarity, claim scope covering analysis of more than one scene. For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Patent Owner, and we determine that analyzing “a scene” as recited in claim 1 does not preclude involvement of additional scene or scenes in the analysis.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that Bolle’s camera and light source are stationary. The camera is stationary for a critical reason, that Bolle’s segmentation method requires spatial registration between two images taken by the camera. Ex. 1006, 10:31–34. Bolle explains: [T]he object 131, the background 312, and the image input device 120 should be at the same position in both step 510 and 520 to assure that the first and second images are in spatial registration. Suppose each pixel is numbered starting in the upper left corner of the image then proceeding across the first line then down to the second line in the manner of reading a book. Registration means that each numbered pixel in the first image corresponds to the same area of the scene (object(s) 131 and background 312) as the identically numbered pixel in the second image. Id. at 10:31–40 (emphases added). We credit Dr. Bajaj’s testimony that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Bolle contemplates that the image processing would be performed at the point of sale by a cashier, using a stationary device with a stationary camera, light source, and object platform.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 33. The testimony is supported by Figures 1 and 4 of Bolle. We credit that testimony over Dr. Rodriguez’s suggestion that Bolle discloses an embodiment which makes use of a mobile device for taking the images.” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 9,324,004 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,324,004 - PTAB · Dec 14, 2022 · IPR2022-01009 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 29 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Littleworth-Linder-Middlebrook obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution of trial. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“when there is an early trial date in related litigation as part of assessing all relevant circumstances, including the merits, to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv Order”); NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 19–20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential). The Board evaluates six factors when making this assessment. See Fintiv Order, at 5–6. Further, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner proposes constructions for two terms, “pitch” and “oblique perspective view.” 1. “Pitch” Petitioner argues that the term “pitch” should be construed to mean either “pitch” or “slope.” Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that, during prosecution, the applicant stated that “prior versions of the claims ‘use[d] the word “pitch” while other places use the word “slope” and that ‘[t]hese words have the same meaning in the context of these claims, however to avoid confusion, the term “slope” [was] removed and replaced with the word “pitch” throughout to maintain consistency.’” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 76– 77). Petitioner further argues that its construction is “supported by the ’961 patent itself which treats the terms interchangeably.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:52–67, 3:11–19, 4:19–30, 6:5–17, claims 1, 10, 16, 21–22, 24). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “pitch” in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record, we agree with Petitioner that “pitch” should be construed to encompass “pitch” and “slope.”” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“At the institution stage, the relevant issue is whether the record includes “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, Paper 29 at 13. As Hulu explains, the reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Id. Hulu additionally observes that, after institution, certain limited opportunities are available for a petitioner to present new evidence in support of its position, including in a motion to file supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123. Hulu at 14–16. Based on the present record, we find that there is a reasonable likelihood that Littleworth was publicly accessible before the critical date of the ’961 patent. Petitioner introduces the testimony of Ms. Munford that “I have reviewed Exhibit NEARMAP-1005, “Three-Dimensional Mapping and As-Built Computer Modelling by Analytical Photogrammetry” by R.M Littleworth, D.M. Stirling and J.H. Chandler as published in International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: ISPRS 17th Congress, Washington, D.C., 1992, Volume B5.” Ex. 1019 ¶ 6. This statement suggests that Ms. Munford reviewed information indicating that Exhibit NEARMAP-1005 was published in the International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: ISPRS 17th Congress, Washington, D.C., 1992, Volume B5, and is sufficient for purposes of institution. As for Patent Owner’s argument that the 008 field does not show the date when Littleworth was cataloged by the Rochester Institute of Technology library, Petitioner introduces testimony from Ms. Munford that “the 008 field of the MARC record is reserved for denoting the date of creation of the library record itself.” Ex. 1019 ¶ 4. Ms. Munford further testifies that because the date of creation “typically occurs during the process of preparing materials for public access, it is my experience that an item’s MARC record indicates the date of an item’s public availability.” Id. Additionally, Ms. Munford states that because the 008 field “is the only date reflecting the inclusion of said materials within the library’s collection, it is my experience that an item’s 008 field accurately indicates the date of an item’s public availability.” Id. ¶ 5. Patent Owner does not introduce any expert testimony to the contrary, but rather relies on attorney argument about the nature of the 008 and 040 fields of a MARC record. Prelim. Resp. 38– 42. Based on the present record, we determine that the testimony of Ms. Munford provides sufficient evidence for purposes of institution that the 008 field of the MARC record for Littleworth indicates the date that Littleworth was cataloged and made publicly available.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,670,961 - Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2022-01109 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied joinder and denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“Practice Guide instructs us that a party seeking to maintain multiple challenges to the same patent claims carries a heavy burden of establishing that multiple petitions are necessary. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner has not carried that burden. Joinder Opp. 1. We agree. Petitioner has not explained why the 1492 IPR is an insufficient challenge. It is true that the 135 IPR involves Plamondon, another reference. But Petitioner has not explained how Plamondon differs from Crowds, Border, or MorphMix, or why granting joinder with the 135 IPR would be in the interest of justice, given Petitioner’s involvement managing the1492 IPR challenging substantially the same claims. In the words of our Trial 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).” TPG 60. We see no evidence in the record suggesting that The Data Company is unqualified to manage the 135 IPR, or that Petitioner would add anything significant to that proceeding in its understudy role.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“III. DENIAL OF INTER PARTES REVIEW It is undisputed that Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’319 patent more than one year prior to filing the Petition in this proceeding. See Joinder Mot. 2; Joinder Opp. 1. Accordingly, in view of the denial of the requested relief of joinder with the 135 IPR, institution of inter partes review as requested by Petitioner is barred by statute. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Because Petitioner is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from seeking inter partes review of the ’319 patent, we deny the Petition and do not institute review as to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“For the reasons described below, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Furthermore, we deny the Petition as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). We do not reach Patent Owner’s additional contentions including those based on Fintiv or General Plastic.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Not reached
“For the reasons described below, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Furthermore, we deny the Petition as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). We do not reach Patent Owner’s additional contentions including those based on Fintiv or General Plastic.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,257,319 - Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2022 · IPR2022-01110 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds under § 314(a), and denied joinder because Petitioner could challenge the patent in the 1493 IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“seeking to maintain multiple challenges to the same patent claims carries a burden of establishing that multiple petitions are necessary. Petitioner’s main argument for inter partes review institution and joinder is that, “it will represent Petitioner’s first and only IPR directed to the ’510 patent that will have been instituted.” Mot. Reply 2. Although we recognize that at the time of Petitioner’s statement it was true, since the filing of the Petition, we have granted the petition in the 862 IPR, and joined Petitioner to the 1493 IPR, where Code 200 is now the sole petitioner and controls the proceedings. Petitioner, Code200, has not explained why Plamondon is more material to the validity of the ’510 patent than Crowds, Morphmix, or Border presented in the 1493 IPR, nor explained why Petitioner needs more than one instituted proceeding. See TPG 59 (explaining why more than one petition on different grounds could be required). In short, no explanation has been provided as to why the 1493 IPR is not a sufficient challenge.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“In considering a balanced assessment of all relevant circumstances in this proceedings, we are not persuaded that institution of this case serves to promote the efficient administration of the inter partes review process. See TPG 56. Accordingly, in consideration of the circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of review of inter partes review.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant joinder is discretionary. Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 3 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); TPG 76. Our Trial Practice Guide states that “when an otherwise time-barred petitioner requests same party and/or issue joinder, the Board may exercise its discretion to permit joinder, but will do so only where fairness requires it and to avoid undue prejudice to a party.” TPG. at 75–76 (citing Proppant Express Invs. v. Oren Techs., IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 at 3–4 (PTAB Mar. 13, 2019) (precedential)). Here, considering that Petitioner has the control and opportunity to challenge the ’510 patent in the 1493 IPR, as discussed above, we determine that there is no undue prejudice to Petitioner. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,484,510 - PTAB · Nov 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00735 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–16 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution of trial. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“not yet set a date for the claim construction hearing, and the scheduling order indicates that it will not set a trial date until 14 days after its claim construction ruling.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1013). Patent Owner does not dispute this. Prelim. Resp. 40. Therefore, the district court trial will likely occur after our final written decision in this proceeding, and factor 2 (timing of trial) weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution. The litigation also is in a relatively early stage because, the parties appear to have just completed exchanging infringement and invalidity contentions and no claim construction hearing has occurred. Pet. 52–53; Prelim. Resp. 40–41. Therefore, factor 3 (investment in the district court litigation) also weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution. Additionally, because this case is in a relatively early phase, the district court will have the ability to determine whether to stay the District Court Litigation in favor of this IPR (factor 1). Pet. 51–52. Further, because our final written decision will likely occur before trial in the District Court Litigation, the overlap in parties (factor 5) and any overlap in issues (factor 4) does not weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution.. Finally, we determine that the sixth Fintiv factor (other circumstances) is neutral. Accordingly, after considering all the factors, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“in this proceeding. Pet. 5. Patent Owner also does not include a section addressing claim construction. See Prelim. Resp. However, in the course of its argument, Patent Owner points to Dr. Forsyth’s statement that “[t]he ’518 patent describes that the oblique images ‘match the perspectives’ from which they ‘were captured,’” and that “[m]atching the perspectives ‘means that image pixels are not aligned on a rectangular grid [on the ground] but are aligned to the perspective that matches the perspective the camera has captured.’” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15) (emphasis omitted). At this stage, Patent Owner does not appear to dispute Dr. Forsyth’s statement. Id. at 19–22. For purposes of this decision, we adopt the understanding set forth by Dr. Forsyth, and interpret the language requiring that oblique images “match the perspectives from which” they “were captured” to mean that “image pixels are not aligned on a rectangular grid on the ground but are aligned to the perspective that matches the perspective the camera has captured.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 15 (brackets omitted). We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the alleged invention would have had “at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience related to computerized image analysis and three-dimensional modeling.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 16). Petitioner further asserts that “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,593,518 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · IPR2022-00929 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Amjadi teaches or suggests the claimed first Internet site, as required by every challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we 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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. We therefore deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We recognize that the claim recites an “Internet site,” and not a “Web site.” Although the ’586 patent sometimes describes an “Internet site,” see Ex. 1001, 4:48–49, 5:22, 16:7, 17:2, 17:11, the patent more frequently describes an “Internet web site” or “web site,” suggesting the inventors understood “Internet site” and “web site” to be synonymous. See, e.g., id. at 2:6, 2:17, 2:20, 2:32, 2:39, 2:65, 3:31, 3:34, 3:35, 3:36, 3:38. In addition, the specification describes the saturation problem addressed by the ’586 patent as one experienced by Web sites. Id. at 6:4–8 (“A media may reach this saturation level due to pragmatic considerations such as limited physical size or space. In addition, saturation may occur due to a requirement to limit the cost of a producing a Web site, magazine, newspaper or other media application.”) One technical dictionary defines “Web site” as “[a] group of related HTML documents and associated files, scripts, and databases that is served up by an HTTP server on the World Wide Web.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 564 (2002). Ex. 3001. Another states: “In more common usage [Web site] refers to individual sets of Web pages that can be visited with Web Browsers.” Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 913 (2004). Ex. 3002. Merriam-Webster defines Web site as “a group of World Wide Web pages usually containing hyperlinks to each other and made available online by an individual, company, educational institution, government, or organization.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/web%20site (last accessed Oct. 14, 2022). From these definitions, and consistent with the ’586 patent specification, we determine that an Internet site is a collection of HTML Web pages that can be accessed by users with Web browsers.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that Amjadi’s incentive host server 410 qualifies as an Internet site. As discussed, only two functions of the Incentive Host Server are disclosed by Amjadi: (1) distributing incentive information to incentive network server 420, and (2) registering subscribers discussed supra. See Ex. 1003, 7:40–42. Amjadi does not describe either function as involving HTML Web pages that can be accessed by users with Web browsers. Amjadi describes the user registration process as the server transmitting a registration form to the subscriber. Id. at 8:1–4 (also disclosing that the completed form is then transmitted back to the server); see also Prelim. Resp. 16–18.4 We see no disclosure in Amjadi of incentive host server 410 having a collection of Web pages that can be visited by users, nor is that evident from the described functions of the incentive host server.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,244,586 - Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00861 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing
On remand, the Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 17–19, and 21–29 on all petitioned grounds and granted joinder with IPR2021-01492.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“General Plastic, and clarified General Plastic by stating that, “[w]here the first-filed petition . . . was discretionarily denied or otherwise was not evaluated on the merits,” a finding favoring discretionary denial under General Plastic’s factors 1–3 is limited to “when there are ‘road-mapping’ concerns under factor 3 or other concerns under factor 2.” Remand Dec. 5. The Director noted that in this case, the Board had found “no evidence of road-mapping.” Id. at 5 (citing Dec. 13). The Director added that “‘road-mapping’ concerns are minimized when, as in this case, a petitioner files a later petition that raises unpatentability challenges substantially overlapping with those in the previously-filed petition and the later petition is not refined based on lessons learned from later developments.” Id. at 5. The Director agreed with the panel’s finding that General Plastic’s factors 2, 4, and 5 “have limited relevance.” Id. at 6. The Director similarly found factor 7 to “have limited relevance” because the one-year statutory time period may be adjusted for a joined case under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). Id. (citing Dec. 16). Further, the Director disagreed with the panel’s determination on factor 6 in view of potential inefficiencies, with the Director determining that “the Board’s mission ‘to improve patent quality and restore confidence in the presumption of validity that comes with issued patents’ outweighs the impact on Board resources needed to evaluate the merits of a petition.” Id. In accordance with the evaluation of the factors, the Director found that “the Patent Owner’s concerns of fairness are outweighed by the benefits to the patent system of improving patent quality by reviewing the merits of the challenges raised in the petitions, which have not been addressed to date.” Id. The Director remanded the case to the panel for further proceedings, with direction to reconsider the institution decision and joinder. Remand Dec. 7. The Director directed that the panel “consider the Patent Owner’s remaining arguments, including those for discretionary denial under Fintiv and against the merits of the Petitioner’s patentability challenges.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“We consider the Director’s Memorandum, which directs that “the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Memorandum 2. The Memorandum explains that “where the PTAB determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” Memorandum, 4–5 (emphasis added). The Memorandum further explains that “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Memorandum 4. On the current record, we determine that Petitioner’s invalidity grounds present compelling unpatentability challenges. See infra Sections IV, D–H. In particular, in our view at this stage of the proceeding, the Petition presents compelling evidence that three prior art references, including Border, which was not before the jury in the Teso litigation, anticipate many of the claims of the ’319 patent. We determine that instituting inter partes review under these circumstances “strikes a balance among the competing concerns of avoiding potentially conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and strengthening the patent system by eliminating patents that are not robust and reliable.” Memorandum 5. Accordingly, based upon our consideration of the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, and pursuant to the directive in the Memorandum concerning compelling, meritorious challenges, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review as Patent Owner requests.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On the current record, we determine that Petitioner’s invalidity grounds present compelling unpatentability challenges. See infra Sections IV, D–H. In particular, in our view at this stage of the proceeding, the Petition presents compelling evidence that three prior art references, including Border, which was not before the jury in the Teso litigation, anticipate many of the claims of the ’319 patent. We determine that instituting inter partes review under these circumstances “strikes a balance among the competing concerns of avoiding potentially conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and strengthening the patent system by eliminating patents that are not robust and reliable.” Memorandum 5. Accordingly, based upon our consideration of the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, and pursuant to the directive in the Memorandum concerning compelling, meritorious challenges, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review as Patent Owner requests.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Petitioner is correct that its previously-filed 1266 IPR was not considered on the merits, and we note that this previous IPR challenged claims of the ’319 patent based on the same primary prior art—Crowds, Border, and MorphMix—as that asserted in the instant action. See Code200, UAB v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-01266, Paper 5, 5–6. We agree with Petitioner that Uniloc is distinguishable from this case here because Uniloc addressed a situation after a denial of an earlier petition on the merits. Reply 2; Uniloc, 6. As discussed above, we determine that the merits of this action present a compelling unpatentability challenge. Absent joinder, a one-year bar would apply to Petitioner, and, again, the merits presented in this challenge would not be reached by the Board in a final written decision. Under these specific circumstances, we determine joinder is appropriate in the interests of justice. Because NetNut has been dismissed from the 1492 IPR, there are no longer issues of cooperation and duplication that would have to be addressed between petitioners. Additionally, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(11), maintaining the previously-set trial schedule in the 1492 IPR is not necessary when joinder is granted. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Thus, the schedule will be adjusted in accordance with a Revised Scheduling Order, entered concurrently with this Decision.” slip op. at 39
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,257,319 - Metacluster LT, Uab v. Bright Data Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Oct 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00687 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–14, 16, 17, 20–24, and 26–32 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under § 103.
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.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be an individual who, as of October 8, 2009, the filing date of the provisional application to which the ‘622 Patent claims priority, 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. Prelim. Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 18). According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed qualifications of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] (Petition at 12) are not materially different at least in terms of affecting an institution decision in this IPR.” Prelim. Resp. 20. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’622 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art, and does not materially differ from Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“claim construction standard as that applied in federal courts in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is generally referred to as the Phillips standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under the Phillips standard, “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Petitioner offers a discussion of claim constructions for the following terms and phrases: “client device,” “first server,” “selecting, in response to the receiving of the [first/second] URL,” the first server “sending . . . to the [first/second] web server using the selected IP address,” and “using the selected IP address as a source address.” See Pet. 18–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:21–22, claims 3–4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–55; Ex. 1005, 8; Ex. 1010, 3–4, 10–12; Ex. 1011, 5, 11–15; Ex. 1012, 2; Ex. 1013, 2–5, 7–12; Ex. 1014, 6). Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s contentions regarding the claim constructions for “client device,” “first server,” and “source address.” See PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 3; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 35–74; Pet. 20, 33, 48, 64, 76). As demonstrated in the analysis below, at this stage of the proceeding, we need not construe these claim terms and phrases. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“For the purpose of institution and based on Petitioner’s citations to Kocherlakota, RFC 1122, and Dr. Olivier’s testimony (Ex. 1002), we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to RFC 1122 when maintaining the TCP sessions [] disclosed by Kocherlakota.” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 151); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized the benefits of Kocherlakota’ proxy servers exchanging TCP keep-alives with each other.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 151–152). Petitioner asserts that TCP keep-alives help detect when a client crashes or aborts a connection during a network failure and prevents server applications from indefinite hanging and unnecessary resource consumption. See id. at 52–53 (quoting Ex. 1006, 102; citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 152). Petitioner asserts that, in Kocherlakota’s system, following the establishment of sessions between proxy 17 and the client computer 11, proxy 19 and/or proxy 21, one of client computer 11, proxy 19, or proxy 21 could crash. See id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 152; Pet. 22–28, 52). According to Petitioner, “without TCP keep-alives, client computer 11, proxy 19, or proxy 21 would unnecessarily expend resources keeping the TCP connection open.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 152). Petitioner further contends that a person or ordinary skill in the art would have known that TCP keep-alives could also prevent periods of inactivity between client devices from causing the TCP connection between them to terminate. See id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 152). Petitioner acknowledges that RFC 1122 identifies potential disadvantages of TCP keep-alives, but Petitioner asserts that a person or ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized these disadvantages are outweighed” by the aforementioned benefits. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 153; Winner Int’l Royalty Co. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 & 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,190,622
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.