- Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 18, 2025 · IPR2024-00528 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment, canceled claims 1–11, 22, and 23, and terminated the IPR.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“A patent owner may request judgment against itself “at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. §42.73(b). Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include cancellation of patent claims such that a party has no remaining claim in the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 1–11, 22, and 23 of the ’932 patent leaves no claims remaining in the trial. Accordingly, entry of adverse judgment to Patent Owner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is appropriate. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment (Paper 22) is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–11, 22, and 23 of the ’932 patent shall be cancelled;1 FURTHER ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1–11, 22, and 23 of the ’932 patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2);” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,249,932 - ROKU, Inc. v. Dolby International ABInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2025 · IPR2024-01354 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Roku did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–17 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). 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). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that any of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’757 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition. See Prelim. Resp. 10 (“For purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner does not challenge that definition.”). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’757 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–24), we apply the level of skill set forth above.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Pet. 9. Petitioner also identifies functions and disclosed acts associated with such steps “[t]o the extent the Board determines that the limitations are written in step-plus-function format.” Pet. 9–12. Petitioner argues “whether the terms are step-plus-function is immaterial because the cited art renders the claims obvious under both the step-plus-function constructions and the terms’ plain-and-ordinary meanings.” Pet. 12. Petitioner argues all other claim terms should receive their ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 96–98). Patent Owner responds that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard,” without more. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. We agree with Petitioner that whether the claimed “step” terms are deemed step-plus-function is “immaterial” in deciding whether to institute inter partes review in this case, because the cited asserted art would apply in the same or substantially the same manner either way. Thus, we do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner and find that Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why the skilled artisan, given Mahieux, would have had a rational reason to modify Mahieux to keep track of, let alone make use of, perceptibly significant frequency bands. Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kyriakakis, persuasively testifies why modifying Mahieux to do so would have made no sense to the skilled artisan: It would not have made sense to modify Mahieux’s system to instead count the number of audible frequency bands (e.g., the number of audible frequency bands B1-B3), as such a count would play no role in Mahieux’s bit allocation. Indeed, as Mahieux’s bit allocation focuses on the number of non-zero coefficients in each individual frequency band in isolation and without regard to the aggregate number of total audible frequency bands of the overall spectrum, generating an aggregate number of total audible frequency bands (e.g., by counting) serves no purpose in Mahieux’s allocation scheme. Further given Mahieux’s focus on allocating bits to frequency coefficients in individual frequency bands in isolation from other bands, [the skilled artisan] would fail to find any use for such an aggregate number or count. Ex. 2002 ¶ 92 (cited at Prelim. Resp. 23). Thus, we find Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why modifying Mahieux to keep track of perceptibly significant frequency bands would have presented itself to the skilled artisan as an option at all, let alone an option that would have been obvious to try. See Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Tech. Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[The skilled artisan] must have ‘good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.’”).” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,339,757 - PTAB · Apr 1, 2025 · IPR2024-01396 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 under all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness; the majority declined Fintiv denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“independent claims’ features. The vast majority of Petitioner’s assertions are uncontested at this stage. Further, Petitioner’s evidence shows that Bennett discloses “a first network stack Application Programming Interface (API), containing at least one first call accessible to each of a plurality of device applications, the first network stack API callable by each of the plurality of device applications to open and use data packet flows via the network stack, the wireless modem, and the at least one wireless network,” which is the only limitation that Patent Owner disputes at this stage of the proceeding. See infra, Section III.2. For the sole feature missing from Bennett—i.e., application-based data usage monitoring—Petitioner presents clear and uncontested evidence, backed by multiple prior art references, that the technique and its benefits were well known, as outlined below. Petitioner also articulates, with clear support from its expert and the prior art, not just one but several reasons that would have motivated a skilled artisan to combine Vadde’s application-based data monitoring technique in Bennett. For these reasons, we determine that the merits of at least one ground raised in the Petition are particularly strong. Thus, this factor weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“challenge Petitioner’s obviousness analysis. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the underlying evidence cited in support and we are persuaded that, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of succeeding in its obviousness challenges to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communication network applications and software.” Pet. 2. Further, “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 8. For this Decision, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in both the prior art and the ’918 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“modem, network stack, and Application Programming Interfaces. Pet. 19– 29. Petitioner further relies on Bennett for its disclosure of routing network data via a first network stack application programming interface (“API”) or a second API call to a proxy media service manager that interfaces with the network stack. See id. at 29–43. Petitioner adds Vadde for teaching managing data traffic for applications using a policy-based system that enforces restrictions based on an application’s data usage. Id. at 44–57. With support from its expert Dr. Traynor and a number of prior art references, Petitioner explains that “the benefits of data usage monitoring were well-known prior to the ’918 Patent and would have been part of a POSITA’s general knowledge.” Id. at 15 (citing Exs. 1003, 1044, 1045, 1062, 1063). Petitioner articulates a number of those benefits including, for example, to facilitate identifying and restricting data-intensive applications to reduce battery usage and to facilitate greater control over data-intensive application activities that risk degrading networks high costs for users. Id. at 15–17 (citing Exs. 1003, 1041, 1042, 1046). In addition, Petitioner explains that adding per-application data usage monitoring to Bennett’s device “would have enabled device manufacturers and service providers to incorporate additional applications and functionality into wireless devices while allowing users to retain control of aggregate device data usage.” Id. at 17 (citing Exs. 1003, 1042). Petitioner adds three references, Riggs, Hendrickson and Srikantan, for their disclosures of various dependent claim features including log generators/reports, storing data associated with played media content, and a network resource indicator that identifies the media object. Pet. 58–95.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,647,918 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 1, 2025 · IPR2024-01397 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–19, exercising § 314(a) discretion because the priority dispute no longer justified two petitions.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied
“of two petitions challenging the same claims of the ’918 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 22–25. As our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide explains, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 59. However, the Trial Practice Guide recognizes that “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary,” including “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,647,918 - PTAB · Mar 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01407 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claim 26 on the Shell and Cole §103 ground, finding a reasonable likelihood that the combination renders the claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Based on a holistic analysis of the Fintiv factors taking into consideration “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6), we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Considering these disclosures together with the cited paragraphs of Petitioner’s declaration, Petitioner sufficiently shows on the present record that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in Shell, when a user attempts a voice call, the user can cause a current data connection to disconnect, because (1) a voice-related connection request will be made, (2) the request for voice connection will be prioritized over data requests, and (3) the request will also be prioritized if it is coming from an active application rather than an application running in the background. Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 140; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8, 13, 14, 57. On the preliminary record, the relied-upon portions of Shell adequately show a determination of whether an application is an active application for prioritization purposes and disconnecting a current data connection due to a user attempting to make a voice call. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8, 13, 14, 57. The attempt to make a voice call would be a user interaction resulting in a request for a voice connection that would be prioritized over the data request of another application using the current data connection. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8, 13, 14, 57. The attempt to make a voice call also involves a user interacting with an application to make it an active background. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Petitioner, thus, sufficiently shows for institution that Shell’s processor is “configured to determine that the different application is an active application based on a user interaction with the different application,” as required by claim 26. Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 140.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“One of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner argues, would have, thus, been motivated to look to references, such as Cole, that provided mobile devices with network access while addressing cost, power, and network selection. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1006, code (57), ¶¶ 14–15, 78, 83, 88, 98). Petitioner also argues that Cole describes Internet access control techniques based on conditions, such as power state change and load on current communication links, and that applying Cole to Shell would have “promoted more efficient communications and network access connectivity.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 83, 98). Using Cole’s techniques, the proposed combination, Petitioner explains, would have evaluated network and power conditions, determined whether to apply an Internet access control, evaluated further conditions, such as whether the application is running in the foreground or background, and then determined the priority of packets traveling over the selected network. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 11, 78, 83, 88, 98). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated Cole’s communication manager 260 into Shell’s connection manager modules 210 and would have incorporated Cole’s connections.” Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; Ex. 1005 ¶ 32, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006 ¶ 31). Petitioner further argues that the proposed combination would have included the processors, non-transitory memory, and display, as taught by both references, to perform the recited operations. Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38–44, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 34, 40, Fig. 2). Petitioner additionally argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because it “would have required only routine programming knowledge well within [ordinary] skill,” “would have amounted to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices . . . in a similar way,” and would have been “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73, 74; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 40; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 34, 35, Fig. 2).” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner’s declarant opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in services and application implementation in communication networks.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 15. The declarant also opines that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. “For purposes of [its] Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not challenge that definition.” Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Pet. 13 n.2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 15); see also Ex. 2010 ¶ 27 (stating “[f]or purposes of . . . my analysis, I do not disagree with this proposed level of skill in the art”). Based on the” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,179,359 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01337 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–30 on all presented grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that the Jobs, Jones, and Rao combination renders at least claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communications security.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 24. The declarant also opines that “[a]dditional advanced education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Id. As noted above, Patent Owner has not yet responded. Based on the record at this stage, we preliminarily adopt the level of ordinary skill provided by Petitioner’s declarant to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“several “means for” performing functions without reciting structure and, thus, those limitations should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 165:20–38). Petitioner also contends that the ’110 patent describes a device with a processor, service processor 115 being implemented on the processor, and the implementation being accomplished (citing Ex. 1001, 26:43–37:2, Figs. 9–15). According to Petitioner, “[s]ince the service processor is implemented on the processor, the corresponding structure for each of the ‘means for’ elements is a processor configured to perform respective algorithm steps for the recited function corresponding to each element.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner specifically asserts with citations to the record the functions and corresponding structures for each of the “means for” limitations. Pet. 5– 11. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretations. In particular, regarding “means for obtaining, through a user interface of the wireless device, a user input specifying at least an aspect of a first service policy,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “obtaining, through a user interface of the wireless device, a user input specifying at least an aspect of a first service policy” and “the corresponding structure includes a [user interface (UI)] and a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of providing the user with information and accepting user choices or preferences on, e.g., service plan selection or change, and/or other service related information, settings, and/or options.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:15–29, 28:41–48, 65:41–51, Fig. 42D; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In particular, regarding “means for obtaining, through a user interface of the wireless device, a user input specifying at least an aspect of a first service policy,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “obtaining, through a user interface of the wireless device, a user input specifying at least an aspect of a first service policy” and “the corresponding structure includes a [user interface (UI)] and a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of providing the user with information and accepting user choices or preferences on, e.g., service plan selection or change, and/or other service related information, settings, and/or options.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:15–29, 28:41–48, 65:41–51, Fig. 42D; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). Regarding “means for identifying that the wireless device is connected to the first wireless network,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “identifying that the wireless device is connected to the first wireless network” and “the corresponding structure includes a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of recognizing the type of network to which the device is currently connecting, e.g., by looking up the 51:4–13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–59). Regarding “means for identifying an intended, attempted, or successful data communication over the first wireless network, the intended, attempted, or successful data communication being associated with the first service activity,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “identifying an intended, attempted, or successful data communication over the first wireless network, the intended, attempted, or successful data communication being associated with the first service activity” and “the corresponding structure includes a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of implementing traffic inspection points between the applications and the networking stack application interface using a T-buffer at socket connections and feeding the side traffic into a traffic flow analyzer.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 29:10–32, 53:51–55, 53:58–63, Fig. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–64). Regarding “means for applying the first service policy,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “applying the first service policy” and “the corresponding structure includes a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of performing a service control that reduces traffic speed for all applications and traffic types successively until the service usage projections are within service usage limits for the present service billing period.” Pet. 9–11 (citing Ex. 1001, 43:38–49:1, Fig. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65– 68).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,588,110 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01181 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been shown obvious over Rao and Scahill.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). 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). “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).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“accessible to each of the plurality of executable applications, the API callable by each of the executable applications to request an execution time according to the corresponding network access policy controls for that application.” Ex. 1001, 107:41–45. Petitioner argues that Scahill teaches that limitation and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Rao and Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 13–19, 24–27; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–72, 81–85. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which are not addressed by Patent Owner at this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that Scahill teaches that limitation and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the Rao and Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. Our specific preliminary findings are set forth below.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) held at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) had three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner further argues that “[m]ore related education would compensate for fewer years of work experience (and vice versa).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is not disputed and consistent with the invention claimed in the ’700 patent.7” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts “no terms need to be expressly construed.” Pet. 4. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.8 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
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,749,700 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01180 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16 were unpatentable, chiefly because Rao did not teach blocking network access.
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. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). 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). “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). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) held at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) had three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner further argues that “[m]ore related education would compensate for fewer years of work experience (and vice versa).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner “does not challenge the Petition’s proposed definition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is not disputed and consistent with the invention claimed in the ’076 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that the term “disallow[]” should be given the same construction the parties agreed upon during the district court proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 9. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. 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
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain where Rao teaches “allow[ing] or disallow[ing]” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–18, 25–30. To the extent Petitioner and Dr. Bims cite to Rao, they reference paragraphs 191 through 193, which discuss how Rao’s filter 322 is used to implement prioritization. See Pet. 15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65. More specifically, those paragraphs recite using prioritization to place the network packets in different queues based on their priority. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 191–193. We see nothing in Rao that teaches or suggest that the network packets would be disallowed, as opposed to simply delayed, based on priority. Id. And, as Patent Owner argues, this finding is consistent with factual findings made by a different panel considering the teachings of Rao in an inter partes review of a related patent. See Prelim. Resp. 16–18 (citing Samsung Elecs. Co v. Headwater Research LLC, IPR2023-01361, Paper 8 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2024) (Decision Denying Institution)). Even if one reads the Petition as arguing that a person having ordinary skill would have modified Rao to include Araujo’s blocking—which we do not—we would not be sufficiently persuaded by that argument. Although Petitioner explains why a person having ordinary skill in the art would want to consider power usage along with whether the application is in the foreground or background, Petitioner does not explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have changed prioritization to blocking. See Pet. 13–18. Indeed, such a modification appears to be one that would render Rao “inoperable for its intended purpose.” In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,198,076 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00048 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references do not teach flanges physically contacting along a juncture.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the ’626 patent, “would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Structural Engineering or a related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in construction connector design/development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. PO Resp. 17–18. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of these cases would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and undisputed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“shaped portion configured to receive the structural component,” “a connection portion,” and “an extension portion,” and that “the extension portion spac[es] the channel-shaped portion from the [connection portion]” and “the channel-shaped portion, the extension portion and the connection portion are rigidly fixed with respect to one another.” Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (emphases added). Claim 1’s repeated use of “portion[s]” to delineate between the three main elements of the hanger, i.e., channel-shaped portion, connection portion, and extension portion, shows or at least strongly suggests substantial flexibility as to the specific location where one “portion” transitions to another “portion” in the fire wall hanger. Similarly, although claim 1 recites that the “channel-shaped portion” is “configured to receive the structural component,” claim 1 recites no limitation precluding other “portions” of the hanger from also “receiv[ing]” or otherwise contacting the structural component. Patent Owner argues that “channel-shaped portion” should be construed to mean “[the] portion of the hanger that forms a channel configured to receive the structural component.” PO Resp. 19. Petitioner and its expert, Mr. Fennell, agree with this meaning (Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–20), and so do we. Indeed, claim 1 plainly recites this as discussed above. But Patent Owner then urges us to narrow the meaning of “portion” itself such that “channel-shaped portion” requires “all portions of the hanger which directly bound the channel that receives the structural component.” PO Resp. 19 (emphases added). Patent Owner argues the Specification makes this “clear.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–31). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 19), we find no support in claim 1 to further narrow the interpretation of “portion” in “channel-shaped portion” to mean every portion of the hanger which directly bounds the channel that receives the structural component. See Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (claim 1). We, like Petitioner, similarly find no support in the Specification or limited prosecution history (see Pet. 5–6), and Patent Owner does not direct us to any, showing that the inventor acted as its own lexicographer or disavowed any claim scope to allot this narrowed interpretation to the subject limitation. See Pet. Reply 3 (“Nowhere does the ’626 patent specification describe that all portions of the hanger directly bounding channel 52 constitute the channel-shaped portion.” (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–18; Ex. 1001, 4:39–47)); PO Resp. 19.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues, inter alia, that Yamaguchi teaches a joist hanger with an extension portion defining a space between its back flange and channel-shaped portion, and Bundy teaches to size a space created by an extension portion of its joist hanger to receive two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall between its back flange plane and channel-shaped portion. Pet. 16–18 (citing 1003 ¶¶ 75–78; Ex. 1007, 5:16–18, Fig. 1; Ex. 1041 (“Perspective View”; “Usage View”)); see id. at 17–18 (discussing “advantages” of two layers of 5/8" drywall as “fire resistance in a fire separation wall”). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to receive drywall between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to provide a shielded fire resistant wooden frame wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Ex. 1007, 2:10–24); see id. ([“The skilled artisan] would have optimized the size of the spacing between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall according to the size preference described by Bundy for optimal fire protection and wall integrity.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80; Ex. 1007, 5:10–22)). Petitioner concludes: This modification to Yamaguchi would have been nothing more than applying a known technique (Bundy’s spacing a hanger seat from a wall frame by distance sufficient to accommodate two 5/8”-thick-drywall sheets for fire resistance) to a similar device (Yamaguchi’s hanger having a spacing of indeterminate length) to obtain the predictable result of a firewall hanger having a space between its channel-shaped portion and a wall frame large enough for receiving drywall therebetween, thereby “protect[ing] the structural members of a building.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:18–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yamaguchi as discussed above, “because doing so would still allow Yamaguchi’s hanger to perform its intended function of securing a joist to a wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1041, 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81). Petitioner argues, “[r]ecognizing that Yamaguchi’s and Bundy’s hangers are constructed from sheet metal,” the skilled artisan “would have understood how to modify the size of Yamaguchi’s extension portions to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall while still allowing Yamaguchi’s hanger to secure a joist’s end to a frame wall.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 1007, 4:47–51); see id. at 19–20 (discussing that although “Yamaguchi’s described setting is a sill plate,” the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to use Yamaguchi’s hanger on a wood frame wall in particular so that sheathing could be installed in the space behind the joist as taught by Bundy” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–82)). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find Petitioner’s cited evidence provides sufficient rational reasons to combine Yamaguchi and Bundy to arrive at the invention of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Analysis Patent Owner argues, “[w]hile the asserted prior art does teach flanges or sidewalls that are in opposed relation to each other, none of Adams, Cullen, or Yamaguchi teach that these flanges or sidewalls engage each other along a juncture.” PO Resp. 42–43; see PO Sur-reply 6 (Patent Owner arguing, “Adams’s, Cullen’s, and Yamaguchi’s extension flanges are spaced well apart.”). Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary depend wholly on its proposed interpretation of the term “engaging” (Pet. 58–60; Pet. Reply 30–31), which we reject, as discussed above. Although Yamaguchi (and Cullen and Adams) may teach extension flanges in opposed, face-to-face relation, Petitioner does not explain, let alone with particularity or persuasively, how Yamaguchi’s (or Cullen’s or Adams’) flanges, which would wind up located on opposing sides of a joist (where a joist is mounted in the hanger), also teach such extension flanges engaging each other along a juncture—indeed, what juncture? See PO Sur-reply 7 (“Beyond asserting that the word ‘engaging’—standing alone—does not require ‘touching contact,’ [Petitioner] still does not address how the extension flanges of Yamaguchi, Cullen, and Adams can be said to ‘engage’ each other.”). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the combination of Yamaguchi and Bundy teaches or even fairly suggests a fire wall hanger wherein “the first and second extension flanges engag[e] each other along a juncture, the juncture arranged to be positioned within the two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall,” as recited in dependent claims 38 and 91.” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00049 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach flanges physically touching along a juncture.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the ’626 patent, “would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Structural Engineering or a related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in construction connector design/development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. PO Resp. 17–18.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“artisan would have interpreted or understood the teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, as well as of the combination of those references, are unsupported attorney-arguments. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Patent Owner cites no evidence of how the skilled artisan would have understood the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, or how such an understanding would support Patent Owner’s attorney arguments. Indeed, Patent Owner did not file any expert testimony in any of the three subject cases, despite that we must resolve the legal question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, particularly the scope and content of the prior art and any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art from the vantage point of the skilled artisan. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; see Pet. Reply 2 (“As a threshold matter, the Board’s findings in its Institution Decision should be carried forward to its final written decision because Patent Owner did not submit an expert declaration in support of its arguments.”); but see PO Sur-reply 1–4 (“[T]here is no requirement that a party rely exclusively on expert testimony in Post Grant Review proceedings or that attorney argument must be disregarded.”). To the contrary, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Fennell, persuasively testifies in detail how and why the skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and suggestions of Yamaguchi and Bundy to achieve the invention of claim 1, including the features of limitation 1.3.B. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–83, 96; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 30–40. We find Mr. Fennell’s testimony credible (and uncontroverted).” slip op. at 40
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Judge Rich’s guidance from over thirty years ago: in all aspects of claim construction, “the name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker, 150 F.3d at 1369. Claims 38 and 91 recite, in relevant part, a fire wall hanger wherein “the first and second extension flanges engag[e] each other along a juncture, the juncture arranged to be positioned within the two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall.” Ex. 1001, 15:28–33, 21:41–46 (emphasis added). On its face, this limitation requires not only that the first and second extension flanges “engage” each other, but also do so “along a juncture.” This recitation of the flanges “engaging” each other along a “juncture” (i.e., a place where things join) strongly supports interpreting the subject limitation to require physical contact (i.e., touching) at least along some portion of the flanges (such as shown in Figure 2, reproduced above). To the contrary, nothing in claims 38 or 91, or their underlying independent claims, suggests that two flanges “engaging each other along a juncture” means or even includes within its scope two flanges “symmetrical to each other across a juncture,” as urged by Petitioner (Pet. 59).” slip op. at 67
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuasively argues, and we agree: There is certainly no requirement that the hanger contain a component “that prevents the back face of the drywall (or any portion thereof) being secured directly to the face of the wall framing” or that the back flange plane “define” or “bound” the space that receives drywall as alleged by Patent Owner. POR [PO Resp.], 25-26. As explained in the Petition and supported by Mr. Fennell’s testimony, Yamaguchi-Bundy’s modified hanger has an extension portion that is long enough to permit two layers of 5/8-inch-thick drywall (i.e., an extending flange having a length over 1 and 1/4 inches) to be received between the channel-shaped portion and the back flange plane. Pet., 28-30, 37; EX1003, ¶96. That is all that is required. EX1046, ¶32. Pet. Reply 12.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626
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.