- PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00250 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Neibauer, Ausems, and Cheng combination renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An obviousness determination “does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Oftentimes, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994–995 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Indeed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references. Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree with Patent Owner that all of the references Petitioner is relying on are the same or substantially the same as references that were before the Office. There is no dispute that Ausems and McElfresh were not considered by the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 8–12; Ex. 1001, code (56). Moreover, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Ausems is substantially the same as Rensin and that McElfresh is substantially the same as Dowling. For example, Petitioner relies on Ausems for a mobile communications device that incorporates a digital camera for recording, storing, and transmitting digital images. Pet. 24. The disclosures of Rensin 3 Petitioner’s citation to “POPR 13 (quoting Dowling, ¶0064)” on page 3 of Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply appears to be an error. Patent Owner addresses Dowling on page 11 of its Preliminary Response. cited by Patent Owner identify a camera as a PDA expansion slot device, but do not disclose expressly that captured images can be stored and transmitted as Ausems does. Compare e.g., Ex. 1006, 2:5–11, 5:17–22 with Ex. 2003, 2:2–21. We agree with Petitioner that Ausems was thus more relevant to the challenged claims, and more applicable to a prior art reference such as Neibauer, that disclose the ability of the user to upload photos to a remote server. Petitioner also relies on McElfresh for its teaching of selecting and delivering advertisements and integrating those advertisements with other content on the same webpage. See Pet. 52–60. For example, Petitioner describes how McElfresh’s “ad server or Rad Server 112 ‘performs the overall function of gathering the necessary information regarding a particular ad (or set of ads) and the particular user and generating a set of ads which have been optimized for placement on a webpage,’ based on (among other things) calculated click-through-percentage rates.” Pet. 55 (quoting Ex. 1014, 6:42–48). In contrast, Dowling’s disclosure cited by Patent Owner4 describes how a user may log into “a geographically controlled web site and configures the packet filter to display information related to a user’s needs,” such that that when the user drives along a mall, “a web page comes up and provides directions to the shopping mall and optionally provides an inside map of the mall to include directions to the desired store.” Ex. 3001 ¶ 64; 4 Patent Owner cites to Exhibit 2004 as Dowling (US 2005/0177645). Prelim. Resp. 11. However, Exhibit 2004 is U.S. Patent App. 2005/0171645, directed to a “Household Energy Management System,” listing inventors as Oswald and Tamsett. See Ex. 2004, codes (10), (54), 76. Dowling appears to have been filed as Exhibit 1030, not Exhibit 2004. Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 64). Dowling’s disclosure is substantially different from McElfresh’s teaching of using a server to select and integrate particular advertisements onto a webpage. We have reviewed the portions of Rensin and Dowling cited by Patent Owner and do not see substantially the same structures or functionality relied upon by Petitioner in Ausems or McElfresh.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art: would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile devices, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices. Pet. 5–6 (citing Madisetti Decl. ¶¶ 14–18). Patent Owner states “[f]or purposes of this Response, [Patent Owner] applies Petitioner’s characterization of a POSITA [(“person having ordinary skill in the art)].” Prelim. Resp. 16. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the ’348 patent and the prior art before us and supported by testimonial evidence. Therefore, for the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“An obviousness determination “does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Oftentimes, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994–995 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Indeed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references. Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Dr. Madisetti articulates this very rationale by testifying that [t]he techniques of Cheng would have provided a distinct technological advantage by allowing the club system described in Neibauer to be delivered to mobile devices by converting web pages provided via Neibauer, thus obviating the need for the Yahoo! server to generate multiple different versions of those web pages (including potentially multiple mobile versions based on different mobile device and browser types), thus making it considerably simpler to provide club functionality to the web browsers of mobile devices. Ex. 1002 ¶ 106.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,922,348 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00249 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Neibauer, Ausems, Cheng, and Squibbs.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“relying on are the same or substantially the same as references that were before the Office. In particular, there is no dispute that neither Harvey nor Ausems was considered by the Office, nor that Harvey is not substantially the same as any reference that was before the Office. Prelim. Resp. 9–10; Prelim. Reply 3. Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Ausems is substantially the same as Rensin. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Ausems to teach the incorporation of a camera into a mobile device, permitting the recording, storage, and transmission of digital images. Pet. 23; Prelim. Reply 3. We have reviewed the section of Rensin to which Patent Owner directs us (Ex. 2003, 2:2–21), and we do not see substantially the same functionality. Although Rensin teaches that “PDA expansion slots may be used to enhance the PDA capabilities with a digital camera,” Patent Owner does not explain, and it is not clear from our review of Rensin, that Rensin discloses the use of the mobile device to transmit the images recorded by the camera. Ex. 2003, 2:2–21. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Rensin is substantially the same as Ausems. 3. Conclusion Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ausems with those of Neibauer in the manner described above. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 114–117. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Ausems’s ability to share photos captured by a mobile device with Neibauer’s Yahoo! club in order to “dramatically expand[] the universe of image data that the club based on the current record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. ¶ 117. Accordingly, on the present record, the combination of Neibauer and Ausems teaches limitation 1a.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile devices, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18). At this stage, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” See Prelim. Resp. 15. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed and implement the teachings of the ’578 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition is also supported by the testimony of Dr. Madisetti. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18.8” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 8. Petitioner also discusses various claim construction arguments made in the district court proceeding. See id. at 25–27, 65–66. At this stage, Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that “no express constructions are required.” Prelim. Resp. 16. 8 If Patent Owner disagrees with this formulation of the level of skill in the art, it must raise that disagreement in its Response. If a different level of skill would affect the outcome in this case, the parties must brief that issue as well. The failure of Patent Owner to describe how a different level of skill in the art is determinative will be a forfeiture of that argument. If there is a dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, then the parties are also encouraged to submit evidence, other than conclusory expert testimony, that supports their position. claim terms.9 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,619,578 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00248 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 would be unpatentable as obvious over Neibauer, Cheng, and Squibbs.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“(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 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. . . . If, after review of [Becton Dickinson] factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8, 10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Institution Decision) (precedential) (footnote omitted). Consequently, we first turn to an analysis of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine 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.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“obvious over Neibauer, Cheng, and Squibbs. Pet. 3, 12–48. Based on the current record, we are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this asserted obviousness ground with respect to at least claim 19.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Based on the current record, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the features of the Yahoo! club (information channels) with a mobile device, thus sending the photo “from a mobile device” and “permitting interaction between a user of the mobile device and one or more additional users,” as recited in claim 19. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 91. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have known that a person could use a conventional computer, such as a laptop computer, to run a web browser to visit pages on the internet, such as Yahoo!, including Yahoo! Clubs. Id. Because the ’039 patent describes a laptop computer as a “mobile device,” (Ex. 1001, 4:24–32), submitting a photo to a Yahoo! club from a laptop computer results in the receipt of the photo from a mobile device, as recited in claim 19.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,032,039 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00247 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–25 on all asserted grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable as obvious over Neibauer, Miller, Cheng, and Squibbs.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“We disagree with Patent Owner that all of the references Petitioner is relying on are the same or substantially the same as references that were before the Office. In particular, there is no dispute that Miller was not considered by the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 6–13; Ex. 1001, code (56). Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Miller is substantially the same as Agboatwalla. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Miller for being able to select different types of communication tools for a group: Miller discloses a number of web-based forms that allow the user to (among other things) specify a name and description for the environment (Fig. 13B) identify the members of the environment (Fig. 13C, 14A-C), and select the various communication features (e.g. bulletin board, etc.) that will be available for members (Fig. 16). (Miller, 0045:12-0046:27.) With respect to the selection of communications features, Miller discloses a user interface for allowing the user to select (from a list) the environment. (Miller, Fig. 16, 0047:31-0048:9, 0042:29-32 (“The group creator selects from among these functions, preferably by way of an easy-to-use web browser interface, and these choices are stored in a database and associated with the group members.”).) These selections are then used in creating the environment or group. (Miller, 0043:3-6 (“In step 1104, the environment is created… to permit the group members to activate the functions selected for the group.”); EX1002, ¶96.) Pet. 18–19 (emphasis added).11 We have reviewed the section of Agboatwalla to which Patent Owner directs us (Ex. 2003, 2:32–50) and do not see substantially the same functionality. Although Agboatwalla describes a user being able to select what content may be viewed (see id.), Patent Owner does not direct us to, and we do not see, Miller’s teaching of selecting different types of communication pathways that may be selected for a group. Accordingly, Miller is not substantially the same as Agboatwalla. 3. Conclusion Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“f) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Neibauer, Miller, Cheng, and Squibbs. 6. Analysis of Claims 2–25 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’801 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“Based on the current record, the combination of Neibauer and Miller teaches “control[ling] activation of a mobile information channel,” as recited in claim 1. As discussed above, the first user can create a Yahoo! Club by supplying the necessary information and selecting “Yes! I accept.” Neibauer is silent on whether the user can select which specific mobile information channels are associated with the Yahoo! Club. However, Miller teaches a similar collaborative web-based system in which the group’s creator can use an interface to choose specific communication pathways to allow: FIG. 16 shows one possible user interface for selecting communication tools to be made available to group members. This screen can be presented to the user creating the environment after the group has been identified and its members selected. It is contemplated that a variety of communication tools can be provided, including a bulletin board service; advertisements; white pages (e.g., a listing of members, their e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and the like); yellow pages (e.g., a listing of promotional and contact information); document security (e.g., shared access secure document storage services); anonymous e-mail (described above with respect to the first embodiment); threaded dialogs; a group newsletter creation tool; videoconferencing; and even other user-provided applications that can be specified by name an location (e.g., URL). Ex. 1004, 47:31–48:10 (emphasis added); see also id. at 42:29–32 (“The group creator selects from among these functions, preferably by way of an easy-to-use web browser interface, and these choices are stored in a database and associated with the group members.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 96. The combination of Miller’s teaching of selecting different methods of communication with Neibauer’s teaching of Yahoo! Clubs would allow the founder to select specific mobile information channels for the group to use. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–100. Based on the current record, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings in the manner described above. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 97–100. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Miller’s ability to select communication channels with Neibauer’s Yahoo! Club in order “to enhance the flexibility and customizability of clubs in Neibauer.” Id. ¶ 99. This would allow the founder to eliminate certain features that “may not have been particularly useful or desirable for some clubs.” Id. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See id. ¶ 100. Accordingly, the combination of Neibauer and Miller teaches” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Dr. Madisetti argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a [person having ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–44). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the invention claimed in the ’801 patent.8” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,825,801 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00246 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 6–11, 13–18, and 20–27, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Neibauer, Miller, and Cheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Madisetti argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile devices, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a [person having ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–44). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the invention claimed in the ’336 patent.10” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 8. Petitioner also discusses various claim construction arguments made in the district court proceeding. See id. at 28–29, 65. At this stage, Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that “no express constructions are required,” and further agrees “that the ordinary and customary meanings of the claim terms apply.” Prelim. Resp. 19. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.11 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“considered by the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 6–13; Ex. 1001, code (56). Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Miller is substantially the same as Agboatwalla. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Miller for being able to select different types of communication tools for a group: Miller discloses a number of web-based forms that allow the user to (among other things) specify a name and description for the environment (Fig. 13B) identify the members of the environment (Fig. 13C, 14A-C), and select the various communication features (e.g. bulletin board, etc.) that will be available for members (Fig. 16). (Miller, 0045:12-0046:27.) With respect to the selection of communications features, Miller discloses a user interface for allowing the user to select (from a list) the particular features that will be included in the collaborative environment. (Miller, Fig. 16, 0047:31-0048:9, 0042:29-32 (“The group creator selects from among these functions, preferably by way of an easy-to-use web browser interface, and these choices are stored in a database and associated with the group members.”).) These selections are then used in creating the environment or group. (Miller, 0043:3-6 (“In step 1104, the environment is created… to permit the group members to activate the functions selected for the group.”); EX1002, ¶104.) Pet. 19 (emphasis added).13 We have reviewed the section of Agboatwalla to which Patent Owner directs us (Ex. 2003, 2:32–50) and do not see substantially the same functionality. Although Agboatwalla describes a user being able to select what content may be viewed (see id.), Patent Owner does not direct us to, and we do not see, Miller’s teaching of selecting different types of communication pathways that may be selected for a group. Accordingly, Miller is not substantially the same as Agboatwalla. 13 References to Miller are to Petitioner’s pagination in the exhibit, for consistency with the Petition. Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings in the manner described above. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–108. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Miller’s ability to select communication channels with Neibauer’s Yahoo! Club in order “to enhance the flexibility and customizability of clubs in Neibauer.” Id. ¶ 107. This would allow the founder to eliminate certain features that “may not have been particularly useful or desirable for some clubs.” Id. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See id. ¶ 108.” slip op. at 26
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,793,336 - PTAB · Mar 26, 2024 · IPR2023-01424 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 and 18–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted grounds, including anticipation by Ueda and obviousness over Plante and Cho.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in the petition “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.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any argument not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at 1 Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 1. In addition, Petitioner notes that Spectrum Holdco LLC is its parent company and that Spectrum Holdco LLC and Spectrum Intermediate LLC “have a financial interest in, or could be substantially affected by the outcome of, this proceeding.” Id. 2 Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party in interest and notes that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of OraSure Technologies, Inc. Paper 4, 2. least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–16 and 18–20 of the ’632 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We decline to exercise our discretion here. As pointed out by Petitioner, the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented with respect to the ’632 patent. Pet. 123–24. Petitioner challenges the ’632 patent on grounds that were not asserted against the ’646 patent, namely the grounds based on Ueda. Id. at 71–123. In addition, we found Petitioner’s arguments based on Plante sufficiently persuasive and determined that the challenged ’646 patent claims are unpatentable. IPR2022-01347, Paper 43 (Feb. 7, 2024). For these reasons, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(POSITA) “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience in the medical device industry, including experience with containers and valves used in disposable medical devices.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 51–52). Petitioner further asserts that such a person would have collaborated with a team member with training and experience in the biological aspects of the invention and education and experience relating to the collection of biological samples. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 51– 52). Patent Owner does not offer an alternative definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that it is not necessary for us to construe “biological sample” or “annular valve” at this stage of the proceeding because neither party contends that construing either term is material to deciding whether to institute a trial on the asserted grounds in the Petition. See Nidec Motor Corp. 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 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,536,632 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01206 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 4–23 based on three obviousness challenges involving Fugitt and the listed papermaking references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Papermaking is cumulative to Mohan. Petitioner relies on Papermaking to teach claim 1’s recitation that “a contact surface of said thermo-roller is heated to an elevated temperature of at least 250°F.” Pet. 32–34. Mohan discloses hot hard calendering of paper and paperboard to improve smoothness, where calender rolls have “a roll surface temperature of 250–400°F. during calendering of the web.” Ex. 2002, 1:7–10, 4:46–57.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons discussed below, the facts do not warrant exercise of discretion to deny institution, and the reasonable likelihood standard is met. We, therefore, grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that the ’142 Patent does not mention heating a counter-roller of a hot-hard calender, and the surface temperature of the counter-roller is not discussed. Prelim. Resp. 12. But nowhere does the ’142 Patent suggest that the counter-roller should not be heated to an elevated temperature. Under the applicable legal standard, the’142 Patent’s silence about whether the counter-roller is heated is not enough to justify reading a negative limitation into the claim. “negative limitation.” Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847 Fed. App’x 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). “[S]uch exclusions must find support either in ‘the words of the claim’ or through an ‘express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.’” Id. (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an intent to define the term.’” Id. (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Similarly, disclaimer or disavowal requires that the specification or prosecution history demonstrate that the invention does not include a particular feature. Id. Here, Patent Owner does not point to any claim language, lexicography, or disclaimer in the ’142 Patent or its file history that would support defining a “hot-hard calender” as requiring that only one of the two rollers be heated to an elevated temperature.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“As we understand it, one theory of obviousness advanced by Petitioner is combining Fugitt’s teaching that “[t]he rolls of the calender may be steam heated” with Papermaking’s teaching about the surface temperature that can be obtained when using steam to heat the rolls. Pet. 32–33; temperature of Fugitt’s steam-heated rollers in order to achieve a contact surface temperature of at least 250°F, as recited in claim 1. Instead, we understand Petitioner to be relying on Papermaking to teach the temperature of the unmodified rollers of Fugitt. Under this theory, it was not necessary for Petitioner to show that the paperboard substrate properties disclosed in Fugitt would still be achieved after increasing the temperature. Nevertheless, the Petition also relies on Papermaking’s teaching of temperatures that exceed the upper limit for steam-heated rolls, e.g., “[h]igh thermo roll temperatures (in some cases over 200°C [392°F]” or oil-heated rollers having surface that “can reach over 220°C [428°F].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005, 82; Ex. 1010, 98). Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner relies on Fugitt’s disclosure of paperboard properties (smoothness and basis weight Y2 as a function of caliper thickness) obtained without modifying the roller surface temperature. Pet. 35–36; Prelim. Resp. 44. There is a factual issue as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to achieve the paperboard properties disclosed in Fugitt and recited in claim 1, if the roller temperature were increased above the level achievable by steamheated rolls. There is also a factual issue as to whether Patent Owner’s evidence of increased energy cost would outweigh Petitioner’s asserted benefits of increased temperature. These issues are best resolved after the parties have had to the opportunity to develop the record and cross-examine the opposing experts. See Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 795 F. App’x 827, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of the modification against each other, to determine whether there would be a motivation to combine.”).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,293,142 - Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 5–14 on all four asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’641 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’641 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the earliest possible priority date for the ’641 patent, “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition, “except noting that other majors may provide equivalent education and experience designing, testing, and building lithium-ion batteries.” Prelim. Resp. 14. 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 for purposes of this Decision. The parties may further address at trial whether “other majors” should be added to this definition, and whether such a modification would have any impact on the unpatentability analysis in this case.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party contends any terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. Pet. 4–5; Prelim. Resp. 13–14. And, for purposes of this decision, we agree that no claim terms require express construction. 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“This argument is not persuasive. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the Federal Circuit has held that “generic” reasons to combine are not inherently suspect, and may reasonably include a desire to make a device “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable or more efficient.” See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Regardless, Petitioner’s asserted reasons to combine are specific (improved safety and less deterioration after repeated charging and discharging cycles), as is the proposed combination (implementing Sakamoto’s range of ratios for the positive and negative electrode materials in Yamaki’s lithium ion battery). Pet. 9–12. Identification of specific benefits that are tied to specific elements of specific prior art references is sufficient to support an obviousness ground. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 797.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Spectrum Solutions, L.L.C. v. Dna Genotek Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2022-01347 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, 11, and 12 are unpatentable as obvious over each of four grounds: Plante and Cho, with or without Maples, and Plante and Patterson, with or without Maples.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(POSITA or POSA) “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience in the medical device industry, including experience with containers and valves used in disposable medical devices.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49). Petitioner further asserts that such a person would have collaborated with a team member with training and experience in the chemical/biological aspects of the invention, having a Ph.D. in microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, or related discipline and “at least two years of post-graduate experience in the area of biological sample preservation and nucleic acid extraction, preservation, and analysis.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner does not dispute using Petitioner’s proposed definition. PO Resp. 6.8 We apply Petitioner’s proposed definition because it is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’646 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings on ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 162 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Id. (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The court in Catalina noted that although no litmus test exists for determining whether to treat a preamble as a limitation, several “guideposts” have emerged from the case law in this area. Id. In particular, guideposts tending to show that the preamble is a claim limitation include: Jepson claiming, dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis, when the preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body, and when the preamble recites additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification. Id. On the other hand, the preamble might not constitute a claim limitation when the claim body describes such a structurally complete invention that deleting the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention. Id. at 809. Also, “preambles describing the use of an invention generally do not limit claims because the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of the structure.” Id.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Additionally, ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable are to be construed to mean exactly what they say–– absent, of course, any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The abstract of the ’646 patent describes isolating and preserving cells from bodily fluids “for cellular analysis” and “genomic studies.” Ex. 1001, code (57). In the field of the disclosure portion of the ’646 patent, cells isolated from bodily fluids are preserved “for studies in any of: functional genomic and epigenetic studies, and biomarker discovery.” Id. at 1:25–29. In the background section, the ’646 patent describes the interest in “large-scale epigenetic research” for the purpose of “understanding the mechanisms of gene-environment interactions” suggesting that “epigenetic mechanisms may provide a molecular memory of environmental experiences.” Id. at 1:60–67. The background section further describes the challenges of collecting bodily fluids, such as saliva, is that it is a digestive fluid that can be rich in proteases and that existing solutions used to stabilize cells from blood, which is a transporter fluid, “will not protect cells from proteases found in some bodily fluids, such as saliva.” Id. at 3:24–36, 4:43–47. The detailed description section of the ’646 patent discloses “a solution for preserving cells in one or more bodily fluids, such as saliva and urine” that “may be beneficial for further separation into cell types and downstream molecular analysis” and “allows for storage of cells in the bodily fluid to retain their antigenicity and cellular architecture.” Id. at 16:9–15. The Specification describes some embodiments of solutions for preserving cells in one or more bodily fluids where the solutions contain a chemical fixing agent, a protease inhibitor, an antimicrobial agent, serum proteins, and are buffered to preferred pH ranges. Id. at 16:15–22. Thus, the plain meaning of “preserving a biological sample,” consistent with the ’646 patent disclosure focused on maintaining the architecture of cells contained in a bodily fluid that may include digestive proteases for further study downstream, is “preserving the integrity of a cell contained in a bodily fluid sample.”” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We agree that it is not necessary for us to construe these claim terms because neither party asserts that they are material to the asserted grounds in the Petition. See 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 18
Patent outcomesUS 11,002,646 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,002,646 - Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00847 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is …
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because the Krames declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other claim terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961
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.