- Menard, Inc. v. Signify Holdings B.V.InstitutedPTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01469 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all petitioned challenges and granted Menard’s motion to join the Luminex IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Here, Petitioner presents substantively identical challenges to claims 1–20 in the ’336 patent based on the same prior art, the same evidence, and the same unpatentability theories as Luminex presents in the Luminex IPR. Compare Pet. 15–89, with IPR2024-00101, Paper 1 (“Luminex Pet.”) at 15–89. According to Petitioner, the Petition differs from Luminex’s petition only because of different party names and updated sections concerning standing, related matters, real parties in interest, and counsel. Mot. 4. Because Petitioner presents substantively identical challenges to claims 1–20 in the ’336 patent based on the same prior art, the same evidence, and the same unpatentability theories as Luminex presents in the Luminex IPR, Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial for the same reasons Luminex satisfied the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. See Luminex Pet. 15–89; Luminex Inst. Dec. 19–64; Pet. 15–89.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“Consistent with § 315(b) and § 315(c), the Board’s rules provide that “[a]ny request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The Board’s rules also provide that § 42.101(b)’s one-year time bar “shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.” Id. We instituted an inter partes review in the Luminex IPR on September 9, 2024. Luminex Inst. Dec. 1. On September 23, 2024, Petitioner filed the Petition and the Motion for Joinder. Pet. 91; Mot. 7. Under § 42.122(b), Petitioner timely filed the Petition and the Motion for Joinder. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“If joined to the Luminex IPR, Petitioner agrees to take an “understudy” role and only “substantively participate” if Luminex is terminated from the Luminex IPR. Mot. 1, 5–6. Further Petitioner agrees that the following conditions will apply to it in its “understudy” role “so long as Luminex remains an active party”: (1) “all filings by [Petitioner] in the joined proceeding be consolidated with the filings of Luminex, unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve Luminex”; (2) Petitioner “shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not instituted by the Board in the Luminex IPR, or introduce any argument not already introduced by Luminex”; and (3) “with regard to taking of testimony, [Petitioner] will abide by 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between the Patent Owner and Luminex.”” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesOther
“5. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we determine that it is appropriate under the circumstances here to join Petitioner as a party to the Luminex IPR. See §§ III.D.2–III.D.4. The estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) will apply to Petitioner.” slip op. at 18
NonePatents in suitUS 10,299,336 - Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he 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 the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,198,416 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 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 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 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 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00959 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–10 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Google would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of review requires the information in the record to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)), we institute an inter partes review to determine whether Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 are unpatentable, considering all grounds in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s position in this regard invites us to err “by looking at [Fisher] individually” and separately from Kuwata, because “[t]he question in an obviousness inquiry is whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant disclosures of the two references, not whether each individual reference discloses all of the necessary elements.” Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks LLC, 122 F.4th 1378, 1385–86 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Game & Tech. Co. v. Wargaming Grp. Ltd., 942 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness is not established by attacking references individually when unpatentability is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–421 (stating “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”). Finally, as to motivation for combining Kuwata and Fisher to practice the invention of claim 1, Petitioner’s contentions and Dr. Stevenson’s testimony justify institution of review. In particular, Dr. Stevenson testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in light of Fisher’s disclosures regarding updating of data files on a camera, to configure Kuwata’s camera to download updated image processing control data from a server via the Internet, in order to pair the camera with various printers including printers that were not yet on the market when the camera was manufactured. See Pet. 15–18, 22–26; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–89, 102–108. Based on the present record, we conclude Kuwata does not teach away from this combination, as Patent Owner would have it. Kuwata merely discloses that the camera manufacturer (as opposed to individual users of the camera) is in the best position to optimize the output control information CI utilized by the camera to reduce differences between images displayed to the user by the camera and images that are outputted by particular printers. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75, 77. This does not detract from the benefits of updating the output control information CI after the camera is manufactured, for example so that the camera can be paired with printers that were not yet on the market when the camera was manufactured. Indeed, Fisher recognizes that “a manufacturer may create various ancillary data files 418, and make the ancillary data files 418 available on a distributed computer network like the Internet for subsequent downloading and utilization by camera device 110.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 55. That teaching in Fisher dovetails with Kuwata’s disclosure concerning camera manufacturers optimizing their cameras with various different printers. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the preliminary record supports, sufficiently to justify institution, Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kuwata and Fisher to practice the invention of claim 1.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s position in this regard invites us to err “by looking at [Fisher] individually” and separately from Kuwata, because “[t]he question in an obviousness inquiry is whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant disclosures of the two references, not whether each individual reference discloses all of the necessary elements.” Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks LLC, 122 F.4th 1378, 1385–86 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Game & Tech. Co. v. Wargaming Grp. Ltd., 942 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness is not established by attacking references individually when unpatentability is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–421 (stating “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”).” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’082 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or related engineering disciplines, and two years of experience in digital image processing,” wherein “[r]elevant work experience can substitute for formal education and additional education could substitute for work experience.” Pet. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 60. “Patent Owner does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . set forth in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears to be consistent with the ’082 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,428,082 - Google LLC v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstituted in partPTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00957 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–8, 10–16, and 18 on all petitioned grounds, but did not institute review of disclaimed claims 9 and 17.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of review requires the information in the record to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Applying that standard on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)), we institute an inter partes review to determine whether Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–8, 10–16, and 18 are unpatentable, considering all grounds in the Petition directed to those claims. We do not institute review as to claims 9 and 17 on any ground because they have been disclaimed. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e).” slip op. at 2
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgment
“disclaimer,” and “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). As a result of the statutory disclaimer, claims 9 and 17 are no longer regarded as claims challenged in the Petition. See Vectra, 162 F.3d at 1383 (“This court has interpreted the term ‘considered as part of the original patent’ in section 253 to mean that the patent is treated as though the disclaimed claims never existed.”) (citing Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc., 933 F.3d 1367, 1372–75 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (disclaimer of claims during District Court patent infringement litigation “mooted any controversy” over the disclaimed claims, ending the Article III case or controversy requirement for District Court jurisdiction). In considering Federal Circuit precedent and our rules, we conclude we cannot institute a trial on claims that have been disclaimed, and, thus, no longer exist. Our conclusion is consistent with the statutory scope of inter partes review as laid out in 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(b) and 318(a) and is not at odds with SAS, supra. See, e.g., SAS, 584 U.S. at 367 (recognizing that “the claims challenged ‘in the petition’ will not always survive to the end of the case; some may drop out thanks to the patent owner’s actions”). Accordingly, we treat claims 9 and 17 as having never been part of the ’056 patent, such that Petitioner cannot seek inter partes review of those claims. Thus, we deny institution of review as to whether disclaimed claims 9 and 17 are unpatentable per Petitioner’s Grounds Three and Four.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . set forth in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 8; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 27–28. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears to be consistent with the ’056 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Petitioner argues “[n]o terms need to be construed . . . to resolve unpatentability.” Pet. 16–17. “Patent Owner contends that the claim terms should receive their ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification and prosecution history, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner does not proffer any constructions for particular terms. See id. Based on the arguments and evidence presented at this time, we determine no explicit construction is needed to resolve the parties’ controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,454,056 - Commscope Technologies LLC. v. Belden Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01061 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 19, 20, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Yanagita, Jachimowicz, and, for claims 20 and 22, Gingue; alternative grounds were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Based on the record before us and crediting this testimony by Mr. Cornelison, we agree that a POSITA would have understood that Yanagita” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner argues that a “person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’537 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a minimum of 3–4 years of industry experience in connection with designing, manufacturing, and testing of twisted-pair data cables.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 12). Petitioner also argues an “individual with a master’s degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g.,1–2 years).” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 12). Patent Owner did not dispute this proposed definition prior to institution. See generally Prelim. Resp. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. During the trial, neither party expressly disputed our definition of a POSITA or explicitly argued that the outcome of this case would differ based upon our adoption of any particular definition of a POSITA. See generally Pet. Reply; PO Resp. Upon review of the full record, we see no reason to modify, and we thus maintain, the definition of a POSITA applied in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“After institution, Patent Owner argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of twisted pairs requires “two insulated conductors twisted together around one another to form a balanced transmission line” as shown in Figure 4 of the ’537 patent. PO Resp. 13. Petitioner replied that Patent Owner’s addition of “balanced transmission line” to the Board’s preliminary construction is unnecessary as the dispute is whether the conductors of the asserted art are “twisted together” (i.e., twisted around each other) and that neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner dispute that if a pair of conductors are twisted around one another, they form a balanced transmission line. See Pet. Reply 1. Based upon a full record, we maintain our construction of the term “twisted pairs,” which both parties agree require a “pair of insulated conductors that are twisted together,” (i.e., “two insulated conductors twisted around each other”). We agree with Petitioner that no further construction of the term is required as there is no dispute between the parties that if a pair of insulated conductors are twisted together (i.e., two insulated conductors are twisted around each other), that they form a balanced transmission line. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“c) Motivation to Combine Based upon review of the full record, we determine Petitioner has articulated a sufficient reason a POSITA would have added the foamed polymer tape of Jachimowicz to Yanagita’s cable between core material 2 (separator) and at least one set of twisted pairs. See Pet. 40–42. In particular, Petitioner states that additing a foamed polymer tape to Yanagita’s separtor core material 2 would have been expected to improve the electrical perforamce of the cable by reducing the capitance between twisted pairs on one side of Yanagita’s separator and twisted pairs on the other side, thus reducing current leakage between them and reducing the transmission loss due to such leakage. Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 45, 139). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have been motivated to add a foamed polymer tape, such as Jachimowicz’s foamed polyethlyene tape to Yangida’s core, because it would have been expected to beneficially lower the dielectic contsant of the material between twisted pairs on either side of the separator due to the addition of low-dielectric constant foamed material. Pet. 42–43.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 6,998,537 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,998,537 - Commscope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01062 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 27–33 are unpatentable: claims 27–29 are anticipated by GmbH-866, and claims 30–33 are obvious over GmbH-866, Jachimowicz, and Gingue.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”). Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner argues that a “person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’095 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a minimum of 3–4 years of industry experience in connection with designing, manufacturing, and testing of twisted-pair data cables.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 13). Petitioner also argues an “individual with a master’s degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1–2 years).” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 13). Patent Owner did not dispute this proposed definition prior to institution. See generally Prelim. Resp. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. During the trial, neither party expressly disputed our definition of a POSITA or explicitly argued that the outcome of this case would differ based upon our adoption of any particular definition of a POSITA. See generally Pet. Reply; PO Resp. 7 Patent Owner does not rely on evidence of secondary considerations to support its patentability arguments. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. thus maintain, the definition of a POSITA applied in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“To the extent Petitioner argues that Dr. Eldering does not meet the minimum qualifications of a POSITA, we disagree. First, our definition of a POSITA requires 3–4 years of industry experience for those holding only a bachelor’s degree and that less years of industry experience is required for those with additional education. Inst. Dec. 8–9. Dr. Eldering holds a Ph.D. in electrical industry and, thus, less than 3–4 years of industry experience is required. Moreover, Dr. Eldering’s declaration, testimony, and CV demonstrate that Dr. Eldering has many years of industry experience with twisted pair data cables. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶ 13 (discussing his 1990–1993 industry experience with twisted wire pairs, including research regarding delivery of high-speed digital data services over twisted wire pair cable), ¶ 14 (discussing industry experience at General Instrument, including the development of products using twisted wire pair cable for distribution of voice signals), ¶ 15 (discussing additional industry experience including evaluation of crosstalk in systems using twisted pair wire cabling and optimizing modulation format), App’x A; Ex. 1070, 201:1–202:7. We thus determine that Dr. Eldering’s education and industry experience qualifies him to testify regarding the perspective of a POSITA. experience of Dr. Eldering, Petitioner does not allege that Dr. Eldering is not qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSITA and did not file an objection to Dr. Eldering’s testimony under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) or a motion to exclude Dr. Eldering’s testimony under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). See Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (stating that an expert witness in a patent case must have at least an ordinary skill in the art to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan). We address how much weight should be given to Dr. Eldering’s testimony, as well as to Mr. Cornelison’s testimony, throughout our Decision below.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“After institution, Patent Owner argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of “twisted pair of insulated conductors” requires “two insulated conductors twisted together around one another to form a balanced Petitioner replied that Patent Owner’s addition of “balanced transmission line” to the Board’s preliminary construction is unnecessary as the dispute between the parties centered only on whether the conductors of the asserted art are “twisted together” (i.e., twisted around each other) and that neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner dispute that if a pair of conductors are twisted around one another, they form a balanced transmission line. See Pet. Reply 1. Based upon a full record, we maintain our construction of the term “twisted pairs,” which both parties agree require a “pair of insulated conductors that are twisted together,” (i.e., “two insulated conductors twisted around each other”). We agree with Petitioner that no further construction of the term is required as there is no dispute between the parties that if a pair of insulated conductors are twisted together (i.e., two insulated conductors are twisted around each other), that they form a balanced transmission line. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“GmbH-866 discloses a first and second “twisted pair of insulated conductors” as required by claim 27. Anticipation is assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinarily skill in the art. Dayco Prods., 329 F.3d at 1368. The “dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching” that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference. Id. (quoting Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 390). Thus, the understand or infer that the “stranded” conductors in GmbH-866 constitute “twisted pairs,” not whether the term “stranded” or “stranding” conductors could have another meaning in another context.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 6,570,095 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,570,095 - Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00977 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 7–13 and 15–20 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, physics, or a similar field and at least two years of experience designing semiconductor display devices, including LCD displays.” Pet. 19. Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional relevant work experience can compensate for less education, and vice versa.” Id. On the record presented, Patent Owner “does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . set forth in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any particular proffered definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’606 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As discussed below, we are able to determine whether to institute review without resolving the construction of any claim terms. Accordingly, we need not and do not construe any terms expressly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“view. First, as Petitioner admits, data line 6a is not connected to image signal line 101d and line 109 other than when sample hold circuit 101c connects them due to shift register 101b outputting an enabling signal. Pet. 49. This is supported by the layout of the four elements in Fujikawa’s Figure 2. Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (depicting sample hold circuits 101c between and connecting data lines 6a and signal lines 101d). In addition, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. E. Fred Schubert, testifies that “two separate lines straddling circuitry are [not] one line.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. The dispute between the parties on this issue is largely one of claim construction: should the term “wiring line” in claim 7 be construed broadly enough to encompass a collection of lines separated by a sample hold circuit? In order to determine that Fujikawa discloses or teaches the recited wiring lines, we would need to answer this question in the affirmative. Yet, as discussed above, neither party proposes construing “wiring line,” or any other term used in the claims of the ’606 patent. Pet. 18; Prelim. Resp. 7. The failure to argue for and sufficiently support a broad construction of the term “wiring line” means that Petitioner does not show sufficiently, for purposes of supporting institution of review, that Fujikawa discloses or teaches the “wiring line” limitation of claim 7. b) Conclusion Regarding Claim 7 Based on the record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 7 is unpatentable as anticipated by or obvious in view of Fujikawa.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,557,606 - PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00973 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that BOE would prevail on claim 4 over Reiner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We secondly conclude Petitioner’s stipulation is commensurate in scope with a Sotera stipulation. See Sotera, Paper 12, at 13–14, 18–19; Guidance Memo, at 3. The Guidance Memo states: Consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., 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. Guidance Memo, 3, 7–8. Thus, applying that guidance here, we do not deny institution in view of the Co-Pending Litigation.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We conclude the preliminary record supports, sufficiently to justify institution, Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure Reiner’s gate/scanning driver 63 to include the ESD protection network structure illustrated in Figure 5. First, we agree with Petitioner’s position that Reiner discloses both of its display drivers 61 and 63 would benefit from ESD protection. That is, Reiner describes display drivers 61 and 63 as “typical example[s]” of integrated circuit devices that can benefit from utilizing Reiner’s bump bridge technology for providing ESD protection, due to the large number of parallel output lines that must cross power supply lines. See Ex. 1005, 4:15–16, 9:11–20 (describing Fig. 4), 12:4–5. Thus, based on this preliminary record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner mischaracterizes Reiner’s teachings in this regard. Second, based on the preliminary record, Dr. Murphy’s testimony that the ESD protection network structure of Reiner’s Figure 5 would be suitable for implementing in Reiner’s gate/scanning driver 63 due to similarities between the two drivers is supported by the evidence sufficiently to justify institution. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–105, 111–120. A first similarity is Reiner’s indication that both display drivers 61 and 63 “have areas where the output or input metal lines have to cross power supply lines” Vdd and Vss. Ex. 1005, 9:11–20, 12:4–5, Fig. 3 (illustrating exemplary integrated circuit device 30 powered by supply voltages Vdd and Vss). A second similarity is Dr. Murphy’s testimony that, at least in some embodiments of Reiner’s gate/scanning driver 63, “each of the [scan] lines being driven will have its own semiconductor units . . . [that] drive that particular line,” akin to the individual output devices 70 and source lines 67 of Figure 5. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113, 117; see also Prelim. Resp. 21–22 (arguing “Reiner [discloses] that the gate driver integrated circuit comprises individual gate drivers” and “a POSITA would understand that individual gate/scan line drivers are coupled to one another”). These similarities between Reiner’s display drivers 61 and 63 support Dr. Murphy’s conclusion that Reiner’s bump bridge technology for providing ESD protection could and would have been implemented in Reiner’s gate/scanning driver 63 in the same fashion as illustrated in Figure 5 for Reiner’s source/data driver module 61. We appreciate, as Dr. Schubert testifies, that the individual circuits in gate/scanning driver 63 will drive their respective gate/scan lines 68 in different ways than the individual output devices 70 in source/data driver module 61 will drive their respective source/data lines 67. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 55–59. Nonetheless, based on the present record, we conclude such differences in the signal outputs of Reiner’s display drivers 61 and 63 have little to do with the benefits of configuring the power inputs of the display drivers to protect the individual circuits from electrostatic discharge events, or how to do so.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We conclude the preliminary record supports, sufficiently to justify institution, Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure Reiner’s gate/scanning driver 63 to include the ESD protection network structure illustrated in Figure 5. First, we agree with Petitioner’s position that Reiner discloses both of its display drivers 61 and 63 would benefit from ESD protection. That is, Reiner describes display drivers 61 and 63 as “typical example[s]” of integrated circuit devices that can benefit from utilizing Reiner’s bump bridge technology for providing ESD protection, due to the large number of parallel output lines that must cross power supply lines. See Ex. 1005, 4:15–16, 9:11–20 (describing Fig. 4), 12:4–5. Thus, based on this preliminary record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner mischaracterizes Reiner’s teachings in this regard. Second, based on the preliminary record, Dr. Murphy’s testimony that the ESD protection network structure of Reiner’s Figure 5 would be suitable for implementing in Reiner’s gate/scanning driver 63 due to similarities between the two drivers is supported by the evidence sufficiently to justify institution. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–105, 111–120. A first similarity is Reiner’s indication that both display drivers 61 and 63 “have areas where the output or input metal lines have to cross power supply lines” Vdd and Vss. Ex. 1005, 9:11–20, 12:4–5, Fig. 3 (illustrating exemplary integrated circuit device 30 powered by supply voltages Vdd and Vss). A second similarity is Dr. Murphy’s testimony that, at least in some embodiments of Reiner’s gate/scanning driver 63, “each of the [scan] lines being driven will have its own semiconductor units . . . [that] drive that particular line,” akin to the individual output devices 70 and source lines 67 of Figure 5. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113, 117; see also Prelim. Resp. 21–22 (arguing “Reiner [discloses] that the gate driver integrated circuit comprises individual gate drivers” and “a POSITA would understand that individual gate/scan line drivers are coupled to one another”). These similarities between Reiner’s display drivers 61 and 63 support Dr. Murphy’s conclusion that Reiner’s bump bridge technology for providing ESD protection could and would have been implemented in Reiner’s gate/scanning driver 63 in the same fashion as illustrated in Figure 5 for Reiner’s source/data driver module 61. We appreciate, as Dr. Schubert testifies, that the individual circuits in gate/scanning driver 63 will drive their respective gate/scan lines 68 in different ways than the individual output devices 70 in source/data driver module 61 will drive their respective source/data lines 67. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 55–59. Nonetheless, based on the present record, we conclude such differences in the signal outputs of Reiner’s display drivers 61 and 63 have little to do with the benefits of configuring the power inputs of the display drivers to protect the individual circuits from electrostatic discharge events, or how to do so.” slip op. at 35
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to the ’157 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, physics, or a similar field and at least two years of experience designing semiconductor display devices, including LCD displays,” and “[a]dditional relevant work experience can compensate for less education, and vice versa.” Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–76. “Patent Owner does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . set forth in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–20. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears to be consistent with the ’157 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,184,157
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.